Literature DB >> 11986092

The Chirila Keratoprosthesis: phase I human clinical trial.

Geoffrey J Crawford1, Celia R Hicks, Xia Lou, Sarojini Vijayasekaran, Donald Tan, Bridget Mulholland, Traian V Chirila, Ian J Constable.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a preliminary safety and performance evaluation of an artificial cornea, the Chirila Keratoprosthesis, in human patients.
DESIGN: A prospective, interventional case series. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen consecutive patients with blindness of corneal origin not treatable by repeated standard penetrating keratoplasty.
METHODS: Keratoprostheses were manufactured and implanted. The patients, all with preoperative visual acuity of light perception to count fingers (CF), were followed clinically in adherence to a protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Safety (keratoprosthesis retention, incidence of serious complications) and performance (visual acuity, comfort, appearance).
RESULTS: Ninety-three percent of keratoprostheses were retained to the date of reporting, up to 2.5 years. One keratoprosthesis (7%) was removed in a manner that restored the patient's preoperative condition. All but one patient maintained their preoperative level of visual acuity or improved on it, with most achieving their estimated full potential visual acuity, (range, count fingers - 20/20).
CONCLUSIONS: This keratoprosthesis is acceptably safe and has demonstrated an ability to restore vision in cases in which alternative management would have had a poor prognosis. More extensive trials are warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11986092     DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(02)00958-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  7 in total

1.  Artificial corneas versus donor corneas for repeat corneal transplants.

Authors:  Masako Chen; Sueko M Ng; Esen K Akpek; Sumayya Ahmad
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-05-13

Review 2.  Artificial corneas versus donor corneas for repeat corneal transplants.

Authors:  Esen K Akpek; Majed Alkharashi; Frank S Hwang; Sueko M Ng; Kristina Lindsley
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-11-05

3.  Hydrogels in regenerative medicine.

Authors:  Brandon V Slaughter; Shahana S Khurshid; Omar Z Fisher; Ali Khademhosseini; Nicholas A Peppas
Journal:  Adv Mater       Date:  2009-09-04       Impact factor: 30.849

4.  Implantation of Iakymenko keratoprosthesis in patients with severe ocular injury.

Authors:  Hong-Wei Pan; Stanislav Iakymenko; Jin-Tang Xu; Guang-Hui Hou; Bing-Ji Sun; A-Ning Zheng
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 1.779

5.  Five year follow up of biocolonisable microporous fluorocarbon haptic (BIOKOP) keratoprosthesis implantation in patients with high risk of corneal graft failure.

Authors:  J L Alió; M E Mulet; H Haroun; J Merayo; J M Ruiz Moreno
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.638

6.  Calcification capacity of porous pHEMA-TiO₂ composite hydrogels.

Authors:  Chao Li; Yu-Feng Zheng; Xia Lou
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2009-06-11       Impact factor: 3.896

7.  Poly (epsilon-caprolactone) nanofibrous ring surrounding a polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel for the development of a biocompatible two-part artificial cornea.

Authors:  Haleh Bakhshandeh; Masoud Soleimani; Saied Shah Hosseini; Hassan Hashemi; Iman Shabani; Abbas Shafiee; Amir Houshang Behesht Nejad; Mohammad Erfan; Rassoul Dinarvand; Fatemeh Atyabi
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2011-07-14
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.