Effectiveness of surgical approach in the management of non-traumatic corneal perforations

Non-traumatic aetiologies are one of the leading causes of corneal perforations. The management of corneal perforation is quite challenging and complex for anterior segment surgeons. The appropriate surgical approach for each case is usually determined on the basis of a combination of many different parameters.

The study aimed to evaluate surgical approach options and outcomes in the treatment of non-traumatic corneal perforations.

Patient data who underwent surgery for non-traumatic corneal perforation between 2016 and 2023 were retrospectively evaluated. Medical records were assessed in terms of age, gender, perforation aetiology, the first and last examination notes, surgical approach, follow-up time, and additional surgeries and outcomes according to anatomical, therapeutic and functional success. Anterior segment photographs were investigated for thorough explanation of the examinations.

Forty-five eyes of 45 patients were included (mean age 61.2 ± 22.4 (90-2), female/male ratio 20/25). Surgical approaches applied according to the size and location of the perforation site included fibrin glue application (6), amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) (9), corneal patch graft application(15), and tectonic keratoplasty (15). The ratio of inflammatory and infectious causes as the two main indications was 29/16. Globe integrity was ensured with the first surgery in 27 eyes. However, 17 eyes required secondary surgical attempts due to failure of the first approach and 1 eye underwent evisceration. AMT was the least successful method among other methods in anatomical, therapeutic, and functional assessment.

There are various surgical approaches for repairing non-traumatic corneal perforations, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. These include high tissue resistance, the ability to remove necrotic tissue, ease of access, and anti-inflammatory activity. It is possible to successfully repair corneal perforations with single and combined methods, considering the above-mentioned features, especially depending on the size and location of the defect. While AMT is a viable and time-saving choice - especially in the lack of donor tissues - further interventions are necessary in most circumstances.