» Articles » PMID: 29497273

Long-term Outcomes of the Aphakic Snap-on Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute

Overview
Journal Clin Ophthalmol
Publisher Dove Medical Press
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2018 Mar 3
PMID 29497273
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To determine the indications, long-term clinical and visual outcomes, and complications of the aphakic snap-on type I Boston keratoprosthesis (KPro).

Design: Retrospective, non-comparative case series.

Methods: Forty-five eyes of 43 patients with type I aphakic snap-on KPros with at least 1 year of follow-up were included. The past medical histories, preoperative indications, best-corrected visual acuities (BCVAs), postoperative complications, and retention rates were analyzed.

Results: The most common indication for KPro implantation was a failed corneal graft (89%). The mean preoperative BCVA was count fingers-hand motion (2.14±0.45 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]), which initially improved to 20/200 (1.04±0.85 logMAR; <0.0001). At the last examination, 24 eyes (53%) maintained some visual gain, 22% retained their preoperative visual acuity, and 24% lost vision due to postoperative events and underlying ocular comorbidities. Postoperative complications included retroprosthetic membranes (8/45, 18%), corneal melts (5/45, 11%), glaucoma progression (6/45, 13%), and endophthalmitis or sterile vitritis (6/45, 13%). The KPro retention rate was 89%, with a mean follow-up of 51 months. The mean BCVA at the last visit was 20/1,400 (1.82±0.92 logMAR).

Conclusion: Most patients experienced improved visual acuity after the implantation of the aphakic, snap-on type I KPro; however, the visual gains were not sustained over time, correlating with the onset of postoperative complications.

Citing Articles

Prognosis value of Chinese Ocular Fundus Diseases Society classification for proliferative diabetic retinopathy on postoperative visual acuity after pars plana vitrectomy in type 2 diabetes.

Lin T, Kong Y, Shi C, Pazo E, Dai G, Wu X Int J Ophthalmol. 2022; 15(10):1627-1633.

PMID: 36262848 PMC: 9522575. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2022.10.10.


Rapid and Accurate Pressure Sensing Device for Direct Measurement of Intraocular Pressure.

Gopesh T, Camp A, Unanian M, Friend J, Weinreb R Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020; 9(3):28.

PMID: 32742758 PMC: 7354859. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.3.28.

References
1.
Chew H, Ayres B, Hammersmith K, Rapuano C, Laibson P, Myers J . Boston keratoprosthesis outcomes and complications. Cornea. 2009; 28(9):989-96. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181a186dc. View

2.
Crnej A, Paschalis E, Salvador-Culla B, Tauber A, Drnovsek-Olup B, Shen L . Glaucoma progression and role of glaucoma surgery in patients with Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2014; 33(4):349-54. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000067. View

3.
Mori Y, Nejima R, Minami K, Miyata K, Kamiya K, Fukud M . [Long-term outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis]. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi. 2013; 117(1):35-43. View

4.
Banitt M . Evaluation and management of glaucoma after keratoprosthesis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2010; 22(2):133-6. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e328343723d. View

5.
Ament J, Stryjewski T, Ciolino J, Todani A, Chodosh J, Dohlman C . Cost-effectiveness of the Boston keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009; 149(2):221-228.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.08.027. View