Outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 reimplantation: Multicentre study results

Jay C. Wang, Christopher J. Rudnisky, Michael W Belin, Joseph B. Ciolino

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the visual and anatomical outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis (Kpro) type 1 reimplantation. Design: Subgroup analysis of multicentre prospective cohort study. Participants: Of 303 eyes that underwent Kpro implantation between January 2003 and July 2008 by 1 of 19 surgeons at 18 medical centres, 13 eyes of 13 patients who underwent reimplantation of Boston Kpro type 1 were compared with 13 eyes of 13 diagnosis-matched patients who underwent initial implantation. Methods: Forms reporting preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were prospectively collected and analyzed. Main outcome measures were Kpro retention and logMAR visual acuity. Results: After a mean follow-up time of 17.1 ± 17.6 months, the retention of both initial and repeat Kpro implantation was 92.3% (12/13 in both groups), and 62% of initial implantation and 58% of repeat implantation eyes achieved visual acuity better than 20/200. Vision worse than 20/200 was often due to glaucoma or posterior segment pathology. Best-recorded logMAR visual acuity was significantly improved postoperatively in both groups (p < 0.001), and there was no statistically significant difference in final logMAR visual acuity between the 2 groups (p = 0.89). Sterile keratolysis (n = 4) and fungal infection (n = 5) were the most common causes of initial Kpro failure in the repeat Kpro group. The single failure in the repeat Kpro implantation group was due to fungal keratitis, and in the control group it was related to Kpro extrusion. Conclusions: Repeat Kpro implantation is a viable option after failed initial Kpro, with visual and anatomical outcomes comparable to those of initial procedures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalCanadian Journal of Ophthalmology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Replantation
Visual Acuity
Multicenter Studies
Mycoses
Keratitis
Glaucoma
Cohort Studies
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Prospective Studies
Pathology
Control Groups

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 reimplantation : Multicentre study results. / Wang, Jay C.; Rudnisky, Christopher J.; Belin, Michael W; Ciolino, Joseph B.

In: Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology, 01.01.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{811b23ca20764f009a24e5bd21da85c4,
title = "Outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 reimplantation: Multicentre study results",
abstract = "Objective: To investigate the visual and anatomical outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis (Kpro) type 1 reimplantation. Design: Subgroup analysis of multicentre prospective cohort study. Participants: Of 303 eyes that underwent Kpro implantation between January 2003 and July 2008 by 1 of 19 surgeons at 18 medical centres, 13 eyes of 13 patients who underwent reimplantation of Boston Kpro type 1 were compared with 13 eyes of 13 diagnosis-matched patients who underwent initial implantation. Methods: Forms reporting preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were prospectively collected and analyzed. Main outcome measures were Kpro retention and logMAR visual acuity. Results: After a mean follow-up time of 17.1 ± 17.6 months, the retention of both initial and repeat Kpro implantation was 92.3{\%} (12/13 in both groups), and 62{\%} of initial implantation and 58{\%} of repeat implantation eyes achieved visual acuity better than 20/200. Vision worse than 20/200 was often due to glaucoma or posterior segment pathology. Best-recorded logMAR visual acuity was significantly improved postoperatively in both groups (p < 0.001), and there was no statistically significant difference in final logMAR visual acuity between the 2 groups (p = 0.89). Sterile keratolysis (n = 4) and fungal infection (n = 5) were the most common causes of initial Kpro failure in the repeat Kpro group. The single failure in the repeat Kpro implantation group was due to fungal keratitis, and in the control group it was related to Kpro extrusion. Conclusions: Repeat Kpro implantation is a viable option after failed initial Kpro, with visual and anatomical outcomes comparable to those of initial procedures.",
author = "Wang, {Jay C.} and Rudnisky, {Christopher J.} and Belin, {Michael W} and Ciolino, {Joseph B.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcjo.2017.10.021",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0008-4182",
publisher = "Canadian Ophthalmological Society",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 reimplantation

T2 - Multicentre study results

AU - Wang, Jay C.

AU - Rudnisky, Christopher J.

AU - Belin, Michael W

AU - Ciolino, Joseph B.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Objective: To investigate the visual and anatomical outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis (Kpro) type 1 reimplantation. Design: Subgroup analysis of multicentre prospective cohort study. Participants: Of 303 eyes that underwent Kpro implantation between January 2003 and July 2008 by 1 of 19 surgeons at 18 medical centres, 13 eyes of 13 patients who underwent reimplantation of Boston Kpro type 1 were compared with 13 eyes of 13 diagnosis-matched patients who underwent initial implantation. Methods: Forms reporting preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were prospectively collected and analyzed. Main outcome measures were Kpro retention and logMAR visual acuity. Results: After a mean follow-up time of 17.1 ± 17.6 months, the retention of both initial and repeat Kpro implantation was 92.3% (12/13 in both groups), and 62% of initial implantation and 58% of repeat implantation eyes achieved visual acuity better than 20/200. Vision worse than 20/200 was often due to glaucoma or posterior segment pathology. Best-recorded logMAR visual acuity was significantly improved postoperatively in both groups (p < 0.001), and there was no statistically significant difference in final logMAR visual acuity between the 2 groups (p = 0.89). Sterile keratolysis (n = 4) and fungal infection (n = 5) were the most common causes of initial Kpro failure in the repeat Kpro group. The single failure in the repeat Kpro implantation group was due to fungal keratitis, and in the control group it was related to Kpro extrusion. Conclusions: Repeat Kpro implantation is a viable option after failed initial Kpro, with visual and anatomical outcomes comparable to those of initial procedures.

AB - Objective: To investigate the visual and anatomical outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis (Kpro) type 1 reimplantation. Design: Subgroup analysis of multicentre prospective cohort study. Participants: Of 303 eyes that underwent Kpro implantation between January 2003 and July 2008 by 1 of 19 surgeons at 18 medical centres, 13 eyes of 13 patients who underwent reimplantation of Boston Kpro type 1 were compared with 13 eyes of 13 diagnosis-matched patients who underwent initial implantation. Methods: Forms reporting preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were prospectively collected and analyzed. Main outcome measures were Kpro retention and logMAR visual acuity. Results: After a mean follow-up time of 17.1 ± 17.6 months, the retention of both initial and repeat Kpro implantation was 92.3% (12/13 in both groups), and 62% of initial implantation and 58% of repeat implantation eyes achieved visual acuity better than 20/200. Vision worse than 20/200 was often due to glaucoma or posterior segment pathology. Best-recorded logMAR visual acuity was significantly improved postoperatively in both groups (p < 0.001), and there was no statistically significant difference in final logMAR visual acuity between the 2 groups (p = 0.89). Sterile keratolysis (n = 4) and fungal infection (n = 5) were the most common causes of initial Kpro failure in the repeat Kpro group. The single failure in the repeat Kpro implantation group was due to fungal keratitis, and in the control group it was related to Kpro extrusion. Conclusions: Repeat Kpro implantation is a viable option after failed initial Kpro, with visual and anatomical outcomes comparable to those of initial procedures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85037586324&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85037586324&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcjo.2017.10.021

DO - 10.1016/j.jcjo.2017.10.021

M3 - Article

C2 - 29784167

AN - SCOPUS:85037586324

JO - Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0008-4182

ER -