Literature DB >> 23073339

Postoperative posterior segment complications in eyes treated with the Boston type I keratoprosthesis.

Darin R Goldman1, Jean-Pierre Hubschman, Anthony J Aldave, Allen Chiang, Jennifer S Huang, Jean-Louis Bourges, Steven D Schwartz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe the incidence, timing, visual significance, and management of posterior segment complications after Boston type I keratoprosthesis implantation.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all consecutive Boston type I keratoprostheses implanted by a single surgeon at a single institution over a 6-year period. Preoperative demographics, postoperative complications, and postoperative visual acuity outcomes were analyzed.
RESULTS: One hundred and ten keratoprostheses were implanted in 98 eyes of 94 patients during the period under review. A minimum of 6-month follow-up was available for 83 eyes, with a mean follow-up of 28.2 months (range 6-84 months, median 23.7 months). The mean time to occurrence of any posterior segment complication was 5.6 months (range 0-42.1 months, median 5.2 months, n = 38). After keratoprosthesis surgery, 63% of all eyes had corrected distance visual acuity of 20/200 or better at last follow-up compared with 10% of eyes preoperatively. Thirty-eight eyes (40.9%) experienced at least 1 postoperative posterior segment complication, the most common of which were retinal detachment (16.9%, 14 of 83), choroidal detachment (16.9%, 14 of 83), and sterile vitritis (14.5%, 12 of 83). Corrected distance visual acuity was worse among eyes that experienced posterior segment complications compared with eyes that did not at multiple postoperative follow-up intervals (statistically significant up to 3 years) and at last follow-up (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution ± SD = 1.45 ± 0.78 vs. 0.89 ± 0.81, P = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: Posterior segment complications occur in a significant percentage of patients after keratoprosthesis surgery, resulting in a persistent reduction of visual acuity in a significant proportion of the affected eyes (corrected distance visual acuity ≤ 20/400 in 61% with complications vs. 24% without complications at last follow-up). Given this, and the anatomic difficulties associated with management of posterior segment complications after keratoprosthesis implantation, it is of particular importance to prevent posterior segment complications, whenever possible, in keratoprosthesis patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23073339     DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182641848

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Retina        ISSN: 0275-004X            Impact factor:   4.256


  13 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.  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

3.  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

Review 4.  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

5.  Corneal inflammation after miniature keratoprosthesis implantation.

Authors:  Alja Crnej; Masahiro Omoto; Thomas H Dohlman; Claes H Dohlman; Reza Dana
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Retinal detachments after Boston Keratoprosthesis: incidence, predisposing factors, and visual outcomes.

Authors:  Maria Stephanie R Jardeleza; Marc-Andre Rheaume; James Chodosh; Anne Marie Lane; Claes H Dohlman
Journal:  Digit J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-12-21

7.  A novel murine model for keratoprosthesis.

Authors:  Alja Crnej; Masahiro Omoto; Thomas H Dohlman; John M Graney; Claes H Dohlman; Brigita Drnovsek-Olup; Reza Dana
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  Posterior Pole Retinal Detachment Due to a Macular Hole in a Patient with a Boston Keratoprosthesis.

Authors:  Daniel Gologorsky; Basil K Williams; Harry W Flynn
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep       Date:  2016-12-02

Review 9.  Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis: Updated Perspectives.

Authors:  Manachai Nonpassopon; Muanploy Niparugs; Maria Soledad Cortina
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-04-29

10.  Recurrent cystoid macular edema following Boston keratoprosthesis type-II implantation: A treatment option.

Authors:  Samar K Basak; Soham Basak
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 1.848

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.