Visual Outcomes of Boston Keratoprosthesis Implantation as the Primary Penetrating Corneal Procedure

Purpose: To report the short-term visual outcomes and complications of keratoprosthesis surgery as the primary penetrating corneal procedure for patients at high risk for conventional corneal transplantation. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 21 eyes of 19 patients who underwent either Boston keratoprosthesis type I or type II as the primary penetrating corneal procedure from February 2007 to March 2011. Results: Nineteen type I (90.5%) and 2 type II (9.5%) Boston keratoprosthesis procedures were performed in 19 patients. Mean follow-up was 14.6 months (range, 6–36.3 mo). Primary indications for surgery included chemical or thermal injury, aniridia, and Stevens–Johnson syndrome. Preoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ranged from 20/100 to light perception and was count fingers or worse in 20 eyes (95.2%). At last follow-up for all eyes, 15 eyes (71.4%) achieved BCVA ≥20/200 and 4 eyes (19%) improved to BCVA ≥20/50. No intraoperative complications occurred. Postoperative complications include retroprosthetic membrane formation (47.6%), cystoid macular edema (33.3%), elevated intraocular pressure (23.8%), glaucoma progression (14.3%), and endophthalmitis (4.8%). The initial keratoprosthesis was retained in 19 eyes (90.5%). Conclusion: The Boston keratoprosthesis, based on early follow-up, is a good alternative as a primary penetrating corneal procedure in a select group of patients with very poor prognosis for penetrating keratoplasty. Although complications can occur and require close monitoring, visual acuity significantly improved in the majority of patients.

[1]  M. Mannis,et al.  Longer-term vision outcomes and complications with the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis at the University of California, Davis. , 2011, Ophthalmology.

[2]  M. Harissi-Dagher,et al.  Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis: the CHUM experience. , 2011, Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie.

[3]  N. Michaud,et al.  Characterization of retrokeratoprosthetic membranes in the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis. , 2011, Archives of ophthalmology.

[4]  E. Myrowitz,et al.  Short-term visual outcomes of Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation. , 2010, Ophthalmology.

[5]  E. Cohen,et al.  Boston Keratoprosthesis Outcomes and Complications , 2009, Cornea.

[6]  F. Yu,et al.  The Boston type I keratoprosthesis: improving outcomes and expanding indications. , 2009, Ophthalmology.

[7]  I. Schwab,et al.  Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis: The University of California Davis Experience , 2009, Cornea.

[8]  Claes H Dohlman,et al.  Importance of Nutrition to Corneal Grafts When Used as a Carrier of the Boston Keratoprosthesis , 2007, Cornea.

[9]  Danish M. Khan,et al.  Advances in Boston Keratoprosthesis: Enhancing Retention and Prevention of Infection and Inflammation , 2007, International ophthalmology clinics.

[10]  James V Aquavella,et al.  Introduction to the use of the Boston keratoprosthesis , 2006 .

[11]  M. Belin,et al.  Results from the multicenter Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study. , 2006, Ophthalmology.

[12]  K. Tsubota,et al.  Donor source affects the outcome of ocular surface reconstruction in chemical or thermal burns of the cornea. , 2004, Ophthalmology.

[13]  E. Holland,et al.  Management of aniridic keratopathy with keratolimbal allograft: a limbal stem cell transplantation technique. , 2003, Ophthalmology.

[14]  S. Daya,et al.  Long-term outcomes of keratolimbal allograft for the treatment of severe ocular surface disorders. , 2002, Ophthalmology.

[15]  W. Feuer,et al.  Long-term outcome of keratolimbal allograft with or without penetrating keratoplasty for total limbal stem cell deficiency. , 2002, Ophthalmology.

[16]  B. Khan,et al.  Protection of the ocular surface after keratoprosthesis surgery: the role of soft contact lenses. , 2002, The CLAO journal : official publication of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc.

[17]  K. Tsubota,et al.  Limbal Stem Cell Transplantation for the Treatment of Subepithelial Amyloidosis of the Cornea (Gelatinous Drop-like Dystrophy) , 2002, Cornea.

[18]  M. Durand,et al.  Endophthalmitis after keratoprosthesis: incidence, bacterial causes, and risk factors. , 2001, Archives of ophthalmology.

[19]  M. Doane,et al.  Keratoprosthesis: Preoperative Prognostic Categories , 2001, Cornea.

[20]  P. Netland,et al.  Glaucoma associated with keratoprosthesis. , 1998, Ophthalmology.

[21]  C. Foster,et al.  Penetrating keratoplasty in cicatrizing conjunctival diseases. , 1995, Ophthalmology.

[22]  K. Tsubota,et al.  Long-term follow-up of patients with familial subepithelial amyloidosis of the cornea. , 1995, Ophthalmology.

[23]  R. D. Stulting,et al.  Risk factors for corneal graft failure and rejection in the collaborative corneal transplantation studies. Collaborative Corneal Transplantation Studies Research Group. , 1994, Ophthalmology.

[24]  E. Cohen,et al.  Results of penetrating keratoplasty in aniridia. , 1993, American journal of ophthalmology.

[25]  The collaborative corneal transplantation studies (CCTS). Effectiveness of histocompatibility matching in high-risk corneal transplantation. The Collaborative Corneal Transplantation Studies Research Group. , 1992, Archives of ophthalmology.

[26]  P. Spring Importance of nutrition. , 1973, Journal of the American Dental Association.