Literature DB >> 17077656

Keratoprosthesis: current techniques.

James V Aquavella1, Ying Qian, Gregory J McCormick, Jayachandra Reddy Palakuru.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare and contrast the techniques and results of keratoprosthesis (KPro) using the Cardona device (1975-1985) with those related to the use of the Dohlman-Doane type 1 device (2003-2005).
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 31 cases of Cardona KPro implanted between 1975 and 1981 and a review of 25 cases of Dohlman-Doane type 1 KPro implanted between 2003 and 2005. Procedures were limited to eyes with a poor prognosis for traditional penetrating keratoplasty.
RESULTS: In the Cardona cases, 39% (12/31) of patients achieved a visual acuity of 20/40 or better at some point postoperatively, degrading to 16% (5/31) at the end of the observation period. Fifty percent (15/31) required subsequent surgical revision of the KPro. Sixteen percent of cases (5/31) developed endophthalmitis, and 58% (18/31) developed retroprosthetic membranes. There were 5 dislocations of the prosthesis and an additional 3 frank extrusions (26%). Of the 25 Dohlman-Doane cases, there have been no reoperations, endophthalmitis, dislocations, or extrusions to date (8/15/05). Forty-eight percent (12/25) achieved 20/200 acuity or better, and 12% (3/25) achieved 20/40 or better. Retroprosthetic membranes formed in 3 cases.
CONCLUSION: Although KPro remains a technique to be used in poor prognosis keratoplasty, improvements in the design of the device and surgical technique over the past 30 years have reduced the overall morbidity and severity of complications and improved the prognosis for visual rehabilitation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17077656     DOI: 10.1097/01.ico.0000214226.36485.d2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cornea        ISSN: 0277-3740            Impact factor:   2.651


  9 in total

1.  [Boston-keratoprosthesis : Preliminary experiences in 13 high-risk eyes from the Department of Ophthalmology of the University of Cologne].

Authors:  F Schaub; D Hos; F Bucher; S Siebelmann; B O Bachmann; C Cursiefen
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Boston Keratoprosthesis: expanding the boundaries.

Authors:  Mona Harissi-Dagher
Journal:  Digit J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-11-03

3.  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

4.  [Boston keratoprosthesis: 73 eyes from Germany : An overview of experiences from two centers].

Authors:  F Schaub; I Neuhann; P Enders; B O Bachmann; B Koller; T Neuhann; C Cursiefen
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 5.  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

6.  Biochemically and topographically engineered poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate hydrogels with biomimetic characteristics as substrates for human corneal epithelial cells.

Authors:  B Yañez-Soto; S J Liliensiek; C J Murphy; P F Nealey
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 4.396

7.  Keratocyte behavior in three-dimensional photopolymerizable poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogels.

Authors:  Nerea Garagorri; Sara Fermanian; Richard Thibault; Winnette McIntosh Ambrose; Oliver D Schein; Shukti Chakravarti; Jennifer Elisseeff
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2008-05-27       Impact factor: 8.947

8.  [Results with the Boston keratoprosthesis].

Authors:  B Koller; T Neuhann; I Neuhann
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.059

9.  Outcomes of the Boston keratoprosthesis in jordan.

Authors:  Wisam A Shihadeh; Hasan M Mohidat
Journal:  Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-01
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.