PURPOSE: Despite demonstrated cost effectiveness, not all corneal disorders are amenable to type I Boston keratoprosthesis (KPro) implantation. This includes patients with autoimmune diseases, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. Type II KPro is implanted through the eyelids in severe dry eye and cicatricial diseases, and its cost effectiveness was sought. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective chart review, 29 patients who underwent type II KPro surgery at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary between the years 2000 and 2009 were identified. A total of 11 patients had 5-year follow-up data. Average cost effectiveness was determined by cost-utility analysis, comparing type II KPro surgery with no further intervention. RESULTS: Using the current parameters, the cost utility of KPro from third-party insurer (Medicare) perspective was 63,196 $/quality-adjusted life year . CONCLUSION: Efforts to refer those less likely to benefit from traditional corneal transplantation or type I KPro, for type II KPro surgery, may decrease both patient and societal costs.
PURPOSE: Despite demonstrated cost effectiveness, not all corneal disorders are amenable to type I Boston keratoprosthesis (KPro) implantation. This includes patients with autoimmune diseases, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. Type II KPro is implanted through the eyelids in severe dry eye and cicatricial diseases, and its cost effectiveness was sought. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective chart review, 29 patients who underwent type II KPro surgery at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary between the years 2000 and 2009 were identified. A total of 11 patients had 5-year follow-up data. Average cost effectiveness was determined by cost-utility analysis, comparing type II KPro surgery with no further intervention. RESULTS: Using the current parameters, the cost utility of KPro from third-party insurer (Medicare) perspective was 63,196 $/quality-adjusted life year . CONCLUSION: Efforts to refer those less likely to benefit from traditional corneal transplantation or type I KPro, for type II KPro surgery, may decrease both patient and societal costs.
Authors: Abraham Solomon; Pierre Ellies; David F Anderson; Amel Touhami; Martin Grueterich; Edgar M Espana; Seng-Ei Ti; Eiki Goto; William J Feuer; Scheffer C G Tseng Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 12.079