Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Anatomical survival and visual prognosis of Boston type I keratoprosthesis in challenging cases

  • Cornea
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To describe the outcome of patients with Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis, with regard to anatomical and visual success.

Methods

Retrospective case series of patients who underwent Boston type I keratoprosthesis surgery at the Centro de Oftalmología Barraquer in Barcelona and at the University Eye Clinic in Salzburg between May 2006 and December 2011. Sixty-seven eyes were included. Anatomical success, visual acuity, and complication rate were evaluated and correlated with the initial diagnosis.

Results

The mean age of patients was 54 years; 62 % were male and 38 % were female. Eleven patients underwent Type I Boston Kpro implantation as a primary procedure, while the other 52 patients had previous graft failure. The most frequent diagnoses were autoimmune diseases (16 eyes), severe chemical or thermal burn (12 eyes), leukoma post-infectious keratitis (seven eyes) and bullous keratopathy (six eyes). The mean follow-up time was 26 months. Retention of the prosthesis was achieved in 95 % at 1 year and 78 % at 4.5 years. Two eyes suffered extrusion of the KPro, six underwent successful exchange of the prosthesis either due to infection, necrosis or extrusion, three KPro’s had to be explantated, and two eyes ended up in enucleation due to panophthalmitis. The outcome of the autoimmune cases was similar to the group with “other diagnoses” and better than those with chemical/thermal burn. The most frequent complication was development of a retroprosthetic membrane in 21 eyes (34 %). Visual acuity (LogMAR) in the chemical/thermal burn group was 2.30 preoperatively, 0.69 at 1 year, 0.52 at 2 years and 0.39 at 3 years; in the autoimmune group visual acuity was 2.3 preoperatively, 0.65 at 1 year, 0.15 at 2 years, and 1.5 at 3 years.

Conclusions

Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis is a viable option for patients with repeated graft failure, even for those with challenging diagnoses such as ocular burns and autoimmune syndromes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Colby KA, Koo EB (2011) Expanding indications for the Boston keratoprosthesis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 22:267–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. de Araujo AL, Charoenrook V, De La Paz MF, Temprano J, Barraquer RI, Michael R (2012) The role of visual evoked potential and electroretinography in the preoperative assessment of osteo-keratoprosthesis or osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis surgery. Acta Ophthalmol 90:519–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Greiner MA, Li JY, Mannis MJ (2011) Longer-term vision outcomes and complications with the Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis at the University of California, Davis. Ophthalmology 118:1543–1550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zerbe BL, Belin MW, Ciolino JB (2006) Results from the multicenter Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study. Ophthalmology 113:1779–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Doane MG, Dohlman CH, Bearse G (1996) Fabrication of a keratoprosthesis. Cornea 15:179–184

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rudnisky CJ, Belin MW, Todani A, Al-Arfaj K, Ament JD, Zerbe BJ, Ciolino JB (2012) Risk factors for the development of retroprosthetic membranes with Boston keratoprosthesis type 1: multicenter study results. Ophthalmology 119:951–955

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Durand ML, Dohlman CH (2009) Successful prevention of bacterial endophthalmitis in eyes with the Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea 28:896–901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan CC, Holland EJ (2012) Infectious endophthalmitis after Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation. Cornea 31:346–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. De La Paz MF, De Toledo JA, Charoenrook V, Sel S, Temprano J, Barraquer RI, Michael R (2011) Impact of clinical factors on the long-term functional and anatomic outcomes of osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis and tibial bone keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol 151:829–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. De La Paz MF, de Alvarez TJ, Barraquer RI, Barraquer J (2008) Long-term visual prognosis of corneal and ocular surface surgery in patients with congenital aniridia. Acta Ophthalmol 86:735–740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chodosh J, Dohlman C (2011) Indications for keratoprosthesis. In: Krachmer JH (ed) Cornea — surgery of the cornea and conjunctiva. Mosby Elsevier, London, pp 1689–1691

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schulze-Bonsel K, Feltgen N, Burau H, Hansen L, Bach M (2006) Visual acuities "hand motion" and "counting fingers" can be quantified with the Freiburg visual acuity test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:1236–1240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chan CC, Holland EJ (2012) Infectious keratitis after Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation. Cornea 31:1128–1134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chew HF, Ayres BD, Hammersmith KM, Rapuano CJ, Laibson PR, Myers JS, Jin YP, Cohen EJ (2009) Boston keratoprosthesis outcomes and complications. Cornea 28:989–996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Patel AP, Wu EI, Ritterband DC, Seedor JA (2012) Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis: the New York Eye and Ear experience. Eye (Lond) 26:418–425

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Yaghouti F, Nouri M, Abad JC, Power WJ, Doane MG, Dohlman CH (2001) Keratoprosthesis: preoperative prognostic categories. Cornea 20:19–23

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Michael R, Charoenrook V, de la Paz MF, Hitzl W, Temprano J, Barraquer RI (2008) Long-term functional and anatomical results of osteo- and osteoodonto-keratoprosthesis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 246:1133–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ciralsky J, Papaliodis GN, Foster CS, Dohlman CH, Chodosh J (2010) Keratoprosthesis in autoimmune disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 18:275–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kang JJ, de la Cruz J, Cortina MS (2012) Visual outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis implantation as the primary penetrating corneal procedure. Cornea 31:1436–1440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sayegh RR, Ang LP, Foster CS, Dohlman CH (2008) The Boston keratoprosthesis in Stevens–Johnson syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol 145:438–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Magalhaes FP, Hirai FE, de Sousa LB, de Oliveira LA (2013) Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis outcomes in ocular burns. Acta Ophthalmol

  22. Aldave AJ, Kamal KM, Vo RC, Yu F (2009) The Boston type I keratoprosthesis: improving outcomes and expanding indications. Ophthalmology 116:640–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sivaraman KR, Hou JH, Allemann N, de la Cruz J, Cortina MS (2013) Retroprosthetic membrane and risk of sterile keratolysis in patients with type I Boston keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol 155:814–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kamyar R, Weizer JS, de Paula FH, Stein JD, Moroi SE, John D, Musch DC, Mian SI (2012) Glaucoma associated with Boston type I keratoprosthesis. Cornea 31:134–139

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Banitt M (2011) Evaluation and management of glaucoma after keratoprosthesis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 22:133–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fintelmann RE, Maguire JI, Ho AC, Chew HF, Ayres BD (2009) Characteristics of endophthalmitis in patients with the Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea 28:877–878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Goldman DR, Hubschman JP, Aldave AJ, Chiang A, Huang JS, Bourges JL, Schwartz SD (2013) Postoperative posterior segment complications in eyes treated with the Boston type I keratoprosthesis. Retina 33:532–541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dokey A, Ramulu PY, Utine CA, Tzu JH, Eberhart CG, Shan S, Gelhbach PL, Akpek EK (2012) Chronic hypotony associated with the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol 154:266–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest for any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralph Michael.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de la Paz, M.F., Stoiber, J., de Rezende Couto Nascimento, V. et al. Anatomical survival and visual prognosis of Boston type I keratoprosthesis in challenging cases. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 252, 83–90 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-013-2481-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-013-2481-6

Keywords

Navigation