Post‑operative outcomes associated with Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation in Northeast China

Gao,Minghong; Chen,Yingxin; Wang,Jing; Wang,Cuiyu

doi:10.3892/etm.2018.6994

Post‑operative outcomes associated with Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation in Northeast China

Authors:
- Minghong Gao
- Yingxin Chen
- Jing Wang
- Cuiyu Wang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Ophthalmology, The General Hospital of Shenyang Military Area Command, Shenyang, Liaoning 110840, P.R. China
Published online on: November 20, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.6994
Pages: 869-873

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the post‑operative outcomes associated with Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (Kpro‑1) implantation in the treatment of patients with corneal blindness in Northeast China. Clinical data of patients who had undergone Kpro‑1 implantation between July 2010 and November 2014 were retrospectively collected. The visual performance, implant retention and post‑surgical complications were recorded for each patient. A total of 20 patients (20 eyes) with corneal blindness were included in the study. Prior to surgery, the patients exhibited poor vision and decreased levels of light perception. At 3 days, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post‑surgery, logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution values were significantly decreased compared with the pre‑operative values. The initial Kpro‑1 implants were retained in 16 eyes. Regarding the post‑operative complications, six patients exhibited retroprosthetic membrane formation, two patients presented with endophthalmitis, two patients developed secondary glaucoma, two patients experienced optical cylinder detachment, two patients presented with corneal melting, three patients had retinal detachment, three patients developed corneal ulcers and one patient had secondary optic neuropathy. Overall, the results of the present study suggested that implantation with Kpro‑1 may represent an alternative therapeutic strategy for patients following previously failed keratoplasty in Northeast China. Serious complications associated with Kpro‑1 implantation are common, and thus, suitable patient selection, continuous follow‑up and early treatment interventions are recommended.

View Figures

View References

1	Oliva MS, Schottman T and Gulati M: Turning the tide of corneal blindness. Indian J Ophthalmol. 60:423–427. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Pascolini D and Mariotti SP: Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 96:614–618. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya'ale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegaram R, Pokharel GP and Mariotti SP: Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ. 82:844–851. 2004.PubMed/NCBI
4	Beckingsale P, Mavrikakis I, Al-Yousuf N, Mavrikakis E and Daya SM: Penetrating keratoplasty: Outcomes from a corneal unit compared to national data. Br J Ophthalmol. 90:728–731. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Bersudsky V, Blum-Hareuveni T, Rehany U and Rumelt S: The profile of repeated corneal transplantation. Ophthalmology. 108:461–469. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Ma JJ, Graney JM and Dohlman CH: Repeat penetrating keratoplasty versus the Boston keratoprosthesis in graft failure. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 45:49–59. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Muraine M, Sanchez C, Watt L, Retout A and Brasseur G: Long-term results of penetrating keratoplasty. A 10-year-plus retrospective study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 241:571–576. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Ing JJ, Ing HH, Nelson LR, Hodge DO and Bourne WM: Ten-year postoperative results of penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 105:1855–1865. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Kremer I, Rajpal RK, Rapuano CJ, Cohen EJ and Laibson PR: Results of penetrating keratoplasty in aniridia. Am J Ophthalmol. 115:317–320. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Tugal-Tutkun I, Akova YA and Foster CS: Penetrating keratoplasty in cicatrizing conjunctival diseases. Ophthalmology. 102:576–585. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Yaghouti F, Nouri M, Abad JC, Power WJ, Doane MG and Dohlman CH: Keratoprosthesis: Preoperative prognostic categories. Cornea. 20:19–23. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Barber JC: Keratoprosthesis: Past and present. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 28:103–109. 1988. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Aldave AJ, Sangwan VS, Basu S, Basak SK, Hovakimyan A, Gevorgyan O, Kharashi SA, Jindan MA, Tandon R, Mascarenhas J, et al: International results with the Boston type I keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology. 119:1530–1538. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Chew HF, Ayres BD, Hammersmith KM, Rapuano CJ, Laibson PR, Myers JS, Jin YP and Cohen EJ: Boston keratoprosthesis outcomes and complications. Cornea. 28:989–996. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Ciolino JB, Belin MW, Todani A, Al-Arfaj K and Rudnisky CJ; Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1 Study Group, : Retention of the Boston keratoprosthesis type 1: Multicenter study results. Ophthalmology. 120:1195–1200. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Dunlap K, Chak G, Aquavella JV, Myrowitz E, Utine CA and Akpek E: Short-term visual outcomes of Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation. Ophthalmology. 117:687–692. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Greiner MA, Li JY and Mannis MJ: Longer-term vision outcomes and complications with the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis at the University of California, Davis. Ophthalmology. 118:1543–1550. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Kamyar R, Weizer JS, de Paula FH, Stein JD, Moroi SE, John D, Musch DC and Mian SI: Glaucoma associated with Boston type I keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 31:134–139. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Patel AP, Wu EI, Ritterband DC and Seedor JA: Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis: The New York Eye and Ear experience. Eye (Lond). 26:418–425. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Robert MC and Harissi-Dagher M: Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis: The CHUM experience. Can J Ophthalmol. 46:164–168. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Zerbe BL, Belin MW and Ciolino JB; Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study Group, : Results from the multicenter Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study. Ophthalmology. 113(1779): e1–7. 2006.
22	Gu J, Zhai J, Zhou S and Chen J: Boston keratoprosthesis outcomes in severe ocular chemical burns in Southern China: A retrospective study. Adv Ther. 33:760–773. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Dohlman CH, et al: Introduction to the use of the Boston keratoprosthesis. Expert Rev Ophthalmology. 1:41–48. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar
24	Aquavella JV, Qian Y, McCormick GJ and Palakuru JR: Keratoprosthesis: The Dohlman-Doane device. Am J Ophthalmol. 140:1032–1038. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Sellami D, Abid S, Bouaouaja G, Ben Amor S, Kammoun B, Masmoudi M, Dabbeche K, Boumoud H, Ben Zina Z and Feki J: Epidemiology and risk factors for corneal graft rejection. Transplant Proc. 39:2609–2611. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Price FW and Price MO: Adult keratoplasty: Has the prognosis improved in the last 25 years? Int Ophthalmol. 28:141–146. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	De La Paz MF, De Toledo JÁ, Charoenrook V, Sel S, Temprano J, Barraquer RI and Michael R: 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): e12011.
28	Muñoz-Gutierrez G, de Toledo Alvarez J, Barraquer RI, Vera L, Valeria Couto R, Nadal J and de la Paz MF: Post-surgical visual outcome and complications in Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 88:56–63. 2013.(In English, Spanish). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Williamson SL and Cortina MS: Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis from patient selection through postoperative management: A review for the keratoprosthetic surgeon. Clin Ophthalmol. 10:437–443. 2016.PubMed/NCBI
30	Farias CC, Ozturk HE, Albini TA, Berrocal AM, Amescua G, Betancurt C, Parel JM, Oliveros MC, Gibbons A, Vargas JM and Perez VL: Use of intraocular video endoscopic examination in the preoperative evaluation of keratoprosthesis surgery to assess visual potential. Am J Ophthalmol. 158(80–86): e22014.
31	Stacy RC, Jakobiec FA, Michaud NA, Dohlman CH and Colby KA: Characterization of retrokeratoprosthetic membranes in the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis. Arch Ophthalmol. 129:310–316. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Robert MC, Moussally K and Harissi-Dagher M: Review of endophthalmitis following Boston keratoprosthesis type 1. Br J Ophthalmol. 96:776–780. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Jardeleza MS, Rheaume MA, Chodosh J, Lane AM and Dohlman CH: Retinal detachments after Boston Keratoprosthesis: Incidence, predisposing factors, and visual outcomes. Digit J Ophthalmol. 21:1–15. 2015.PubMed/NCBI
34	Cade F, Grosskreutz CL, Tauber A and Dohlman CH: Glaucoma in eyes with severe chemical burn, before and after keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 30:1322–1327. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Kammerdiener LL, Speiser JL, Aquavella JV, Harissi-Dagher M, Dohlman CH, Chodosh J and Ciolino JB: Protective effect of soft contact lenses after boston keratoprosthesis. Br J Ophthalmol. 100:549–552. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI