We have compared penetrating keratoplasty at a teaching hospital and a district general hospital (DGH). At the teaching hospital, the pathology was similar to previous reports, but at the DGH the patients were older (P<0.01) and had a worse prognosis. The vision in the unoperated eye was also frequently poor.
The number of postoperative outpatient visits within a hospital was unrelated to the original disease, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two centres. At the DGH, a corneal transplant patient requires the outpatient resources equivalent to three matched cataract patients. The implications for medical manpower requirements are discussed.
SugarA., MeyerR.F., BahnC.F.A randomised trial of pressure patching for epithelial defects after keratoplasty.Am J Ophthalmol1983; 95: 637–40
6.
HeidemannD.G., SugarA., MeyerR.F., MuschD.C.Oversized donor grafts in penetrating keratoplasty. A randomised trial.Arch Ophthalmol1985; 103: 1807–11
7.
BishopV.L., RobinsonL.P., WechslerA.W., BillsonF.A.Corneal graft survival: a retrospective Australian study.Aust NZ J Ophthalmol1986; 14: 133–8
8.
Volker-DiebenH.J.The effect of immunological and nonimmunological factors on corneal graft survival. A single centre study.Doc Ophthalmol1984; 57: 1–151
9.
CollumL.M., MullaneyJ.J., McDermottM.A., HilleryM., MullaneyP.A comparative analysis over a decade of the changing indications for penetrating keratoplasty in Ireland.Irish J Med Sci1987; 156: 262–4
10.
MénageM.J., ClaouéC.M.P.Severe herpetic keratitis II. The costs associated with penetrating keratoplasty.J R Soc Med1988; 81: 526–7
11.
Anon.Inpatient and outpatient costs.Br Med J1988; 296: 1014
