Sepehr Feizi

[15] Ando H, Ido T, Kawai Y, Yamamoto T, Kitazawa Y. Inhibition of corneal epithelial wound healing. A comparative study of mitomycin C and 5-fluorouracil. Ophthal‐

[16] Rubinfeld RS, Pfister RR, Stein RM, Foster CS, Martin NF, Stoleru S, et al. Serious complications of topical mitomycin-C after pterygium surgery. Ophthalmology.

[17] Mutlu FM, Sobaci G, Tatar T, Yildirim E. A comparative study of recurrent ptery‐ gium surgery: limbal conjunctival autograft transplantation versus mitomycin C

[18] Wong VA, Law FC. Use of mitomycin C with conjunctival autograft in pterygium

[19] Zanjani H, Nikandish M, Salari AM, Heyrani Moghadam H and Dashipoor A. Effica‐ cy and safety of subconjunctival mitomycin C and Daunorubicin in the treatment of

[20] Kee C, Pelzek CD, Kaufman PL. Mitomycin C suppresses aqueous human flow in

[21] Lam DS, Wong AK, Fan DS, Chew S, Kwok PS, Tso MO. Intraoperative mitomycin C to prevent recurrence of pterygium after excision: a 30-month follow-up study. Oph‐

[22] Raiskup F, Solomon A, Landau D, Ilsar M, Frucht-Pery J. Mitomycin C for ptery‐

[23] Donnenfeld ED, Perry HD, Fromer S, Doshi S, Solomon R, Biser S. Subconjunctival mitomycin C as adjunctive therapy before pterygium excision. Ophthalmology. 2003;

[24] Khakshoor H, Zarei S, Sharifi M, et al. Clinical result and complication of adjunctive subconjunctival mitomycin –C injection before pterygium excision. Iran J Ophthal.

[25] Oguz H. Mitomycin C and pterygium excision,Ophthalmology. 2003 Nov; 110(11):

gium: long term evaluation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004; 88 (11): 1425-1428.

surgery in Asian-Canadians. Ophthalmology. 1999; 106 (8): 1512-1515.

with conjunctival flap. Ophthalmology. 1999; 106 (4): 817-821.

cynomolgus monkeys. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995; 113 (2): 239-242.

pterygium. Bina Ophthalmol. 2007; 12 (3): 367-372.

thalmology. 1998; 105 (5): 901-904

110 (5): 1012-1016.

2005; 18(2):70-6.

2257-2258.

mology. 1992; 99 (12): 1809-1814.

1992; 99 (11): 1647-1654.

76 Advances in Eye Surgery

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/60088

#### **Abstract**

Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) has been recently introduced as an alternative to penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for corneal pathologies not involving corneal endothelium. DALK does not rely on donor endothelium and requires less rigid criteria for donor corneal tissue quality. Therefore, it provides a greater availability of donor corneas that do not need perfectly healthy endothelium and high endothelial cell density to be suitable for PK. Furthermore, as lamellar corneal surgery expands the potential use of acellular corneal tissue, long-term preservation techni‐ ques are being revisited as a way to increase availability of corneal tissue to alleviate constraints of availability, cost, storage, and transportation in many countries. The recent alterations in the technique of corneal transplantation and hence the type of donor cornea tissues used for each technique, may require eye banks and corneal surgeons to reassess their selection criteria but it is important for any changes to be evidence-based. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to present an updated analysis on the type and quality of donor corneas used for PK and DALK, to evaluate the impact of donor and eye bank variables on the suitability of corneas for trans‐ plantation and then go on to determine whether any of these donor factors affect clinical outcomes, complications, and graft survivals.

**Keywords:** corneal transplantation, penetrating keratoplasty, full-thickness keratoplasty, deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty, deep lamellar keratoplasty, maximum depth anterior lamellar keratoplasty, donor corneal quality, graft quality

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
