Literature DB >> 18491123

Long-term functional and anatomical results of osteo- and osteoodonto-keratoprosthesis.

Ralph Michael1, Victor Charoenrook, Maria Fideliz de la Paz, Wolfgang Hitzl, Jose Temprano, Rafael I Barraquer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To analyse the functional and anatomical results of keratoprosthesis using tooth and tibial autograft.
METHODS: We reviewed 227 charts of patients that underwent osteo-keratoprosthesis (OKP) (n = 82) or osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP) (n = 145) at the Centro de Oftalmología Barraquer. Mean follow-up time was 8.4 years for OOKP and 3.5 years for OKP. Kaplan-Meier survival curves with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for functional success, defined as BCVA >0.05. Anatomical success was defined as retention of the keratoprosthesis lamina. Visual Acuity by Time (VAT) Index with 95% CI was calculated for up to 2 years post-OKP and up to 6 years post-OOKP. Maximum visual acuity ever reached after the last step of the implantation of the keratoprosthesis was used as an indicator for the potential of the retina.
RESULTS: Based on Kaplan-Meier analyses, 10-year anatomical survival was 66% (CI 57-76) for OOKP and 47% (CI 27-67) for OKP. Two-year functional survival was 63% (CI 55-71) for OOKP and 49% (CI 37-60) for OKP, and 10-year functional survival was 38% (CI 29-48) for OOKP and 17% (CI 5-28) for OKP. Multivariate analysis showed that neither surgical technique (OOKP or OKP), primary diagnosis nor age had a significant influence on the functional survival. However, a high maximum visual acuity ever reached post-op decreased the risk for functional failure. According to the VAT Index calculations, mean BCVA 2 years after OOKP was 0.33 (CI 0.28-0.41) and after OKP was 0.28 (CI 0.20-0.36).
CONCLUSION: Although we found a tendency that OOKP had better anatomical results than OKP, this difference was not statistically significant up to 10 years post-op. Functional results for both techniques were not significantly different at the 2-year follow-up, but at 10 years they were. However, this difference was influenced by the retinal potential and not by the technique itself.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18491123     DOI: 10.1007/s00417-008-0850-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  3 in total

1.  Medium term results in keratoprostheses with biocompatible and biological haptic.

Authors:  K Hille; A Hille; K W Ruprecht
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-11-19       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Modified osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis for treatment of corneal blindness: long-term anatomical and functional outcomes in 181 cases.

Authors:  Giancarlo Falcinelli; Benedetto Falsini; Maurizio Taloni; Paolo Colliardo; Giovanni Falcinelli
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-10

3.  Standards for modified osteoodontokeratoprosthesis (OOKP) surgery according to Strampelli and Falcinelli: the Rome-Vienna Protocol.

Authors:  Konrad Hille; Günther Grabner; Christopher Liu; Paolo Colliardo; Giovanni Falcinelli; Maurizio Taloni; GianCarlo Falcinelli
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.651

  3 in total
  10 in total

1.  Structural & functional rehabilitation in eyes with lamina resorption following MOOKP--can the lamina be salvaged?

Authors:  Geetha Iyer; Bhaskar Srinivasan; Shweta Agarwal; Shanmugasundaram Shanmugasundaram; Gunaseelan Rajan
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  [Long-term outcome of keratoprosthesis with biological support].

Authors:  K Hille
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 1.059

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.  Anatomical survival and visual prognosis of Boston type I keratoprosthesis in challenging cases.

Authors:  Maria Fideliz de la Paz; Josef Stoiber; Valeria de Rezende Couto Nascimento; Juan Alvarez de Toledo; Orang Seyeddain; Wolfgang Hitzl; Günther Grabner; Rafael I Barraquer; Ralph Michael
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Osteo-odonto keratoprosthesis in Stevens-Johnson syndrome: a case report.

Authors:  Reddy Sc; Tajunisah I; Tan D T
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-04-18       Impact factor: 1.779

Review 6.  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

Review 7.  Keratoprostheses for corneal blindness: a review of contemporary devices.

Authors:  Venkata S Avadhanam; Helen E Smith; Christopher Liu
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-04-16

Review 8.  Future perspectives for regenerative medicine in ophthalmology.

Authors:  Jennifer Elisseeff; Marcos G Madrid; Qiaozhi Lu; J Jeremy Chae; Qiongyu Guo
Journal:  Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013 Jan-Mar

Review 9.  Limbal stem cell transplantation: current perspectives.

Authors:  Marwan Raymond Atallah; Sotiria Palioura; Victor L Perez; Guillermo Amescua
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-04-01

Review 10.  Keratoprosthesis: A Review of Recent Advances in the Field.

Authors:  Borja Salvador-Culla; Paraskevi E Kolovou
Journal:  J Funct Biomater       Date:  2016-05-19
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.