The Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis

Aldave, Anthony J.; Kamal, Khairidzan Mohd; Vo, Rosalind C.; Yu, Fei

doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.058

Cited by 274 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…General indications are corneal allograft rejection, corneal vascularization, opacity with limbal stem cell deficiency (aniridia and others) and chemical burns [2,8,9]. Modified Kpro design, routine use of soft contact lens after surgery and long-term use of antibiotics have significantly reduced complication rates, leading to improved final visual outcomes with this procedure [10]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Primary Diagnosis and Complications on Visual Outcome in Patients Receiving a Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis

Nascimento

Paz²,

Rosandic³

et al. 2014

Ophthalmic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To analyse how primary diagnosis and complications affect the evolution of post-operative visual acuity (VA). Methods: We performed retrospective chart analysis on 59 eyes in 57 patients with various diagnoses, most of which were non-standard indications for Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (Kpro) implantation. The follow-up period was at least 3 months. Patients were classified based on the evolution of post-operative VA: group A demonstrated stable VA improvement, group B lost VA improvement and group C no significant VA improvement. Results: We assigned 46% of our cases to group A with stable VA improvement, 32% to group B with lost VA improvement, and 22% to group C with no VA improvement. The number of graft failures before Kpro implantation did not influence VA outcome. Except for the relatively good VA outcome in chemical burn and radiation injury patients, there seems to be no association between primary diagnosis and positive or negative VA outcome. Only 9% of patients with posterior segment complications and 20% with infections and associated pathologies were assigned to group A. Conclusion: Most cases (78%) showed improvement in VA after Boston type 1 Kpro (groups A and B). Posterior segment complications and infections mostly resulted in persistent loss of vision. These complications should be prevented and carefully treated.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Primary Diagnosis and Complications on Visual Outcome in Patients Receiving a Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis

Nascimento

Paz²,

Rosandic³

et al. 2014

Ophthalmic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among them, Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 and 2, the AlphaCor artificial cornea, the Legeais BioKpro III and the osteo-odonto Keratoprosthesis represent the commonest forms [2,7,8]. Although Kpro has gained supporters over the last decade, the management of post-operative complications, especially when posterior segment approach is indicated, remains a challenge [9].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Retroprosthetic membrane, high intraocular pressure, vitritis, choroidal or vitreous haemorrhage, retinal detachment, posterior capsular opacification and others represent some of the most frequent post-operative complications [2,7]. Endophthalmitis has been reported to have occurred in 13 of 108 eyes with Kpro [6], with none of these patients treated with PPV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eighteen years later, the Boston Type 1 keratoprosthesis was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [2] and since then its use has expanded to clinical practice for patients with corneal blindness and poor prognosis for penetrating keratoplasty, such as repeated graft failure or severe ocular surface disease (e.g. Stevens-Johnson syndrome, ocular cicatricial pemphigoid, chemical burns, stem cell deficiency etc.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stevens-Johnson syndrome, ocular cicatricial pemphigoid, chemical burns, stem cell deficiency etc.) [2][3][4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Presumed endophthalmitis following Boston keratoprosthesis treated with 25 gauge vitrectomy: a report of three cases

Georgalas

Kanelopoulos

Petrou

et al. 2009

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present our experience from managing presumed bacterial endophthalmitis with 25 g PPV in patients previously implanted with Boston Kpro, which to the best of our knowledge has not been reported before. Although the number of cases is small to draw accurate conclusions, we have to report that 25 g vitrectomy was performed without significant difficulties and seems to be a useful tool for the management of patients with Kpros requiring vitreoretinal surgery.

show abstract

Role for Ipsilateral Autologous Corneas as a Carrier for the Boston Keratoprosthesis: The Africa Experience

Ament¹,

Tilahun²,

Mudawi³

et al. 2010

Arch Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lee TS. Community-acquired bleb-related endophthalmitis caused by vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Can J Ophthalmol. 2007; 42(3):477-478. 5. Fiscella RG, Lai WW, Buerk B, et al. Aqueous and vitreous penetration of linezolid (Zyvox) after oral administration. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(6):1191-1195. 6. Vinh DC, Rubinstein E. Linezolid: a review of safety and tolerability. J Infect. 2009;59(suppl 1):S59-S74. 7. Forster RK. The Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study.

show abstract

The Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis

Cited by 274 publications

References 24 publications

Influence of Primary Diagnosis and Complications on Visual Outcome in Patients Receiving a Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis

Influence of Primary Diagnosis and Complications on Visual Outcome in Patients Receiving a Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis

Presumed endophthalmitis following Boston keratoprosthesis treated with 25 gauge vitrectomy: a report of three cases

Role for Ipsilateral Autologous Corneas as a Carrier for the Boston Keratoprosthesis: The Africa Experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About