OBJECTIVE: To report the retention rate of the Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 and to identify risk factors for keratoprosthesis loss. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 300 eyes of 300 patients who underwent implantation of the Boston keratoprosthesis type I device between January 2003 and July 2008 by 19 surgeons at 18 medical centers. METHODS: Forms reporting preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were prospectively collected and subsequently analyzed at a central data collection site. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Keratoprosthesis retention. RESULTS: A total cumulative number of 422 life-years of device implantation are included in this analysis. The average duration of follow-up was 17.1 ± 14.8 months, with a range of 1 week to >6.1 years. Ninety-three percent of the 300 Boston keratoprosthesis implants were retained at their last follow-up, corresponding to a retention time of 396 patient-years or 1.42 years/keratoprosthesis. The probability of retention after 1 year and 2 years was 94% and 89%, respectively. During the study period, 21 (7%) eyes failed to retain the device; the reasons for keratoprosthesis loss include sterile keratolysis (9), fungal infections (8), dense retroprosthetic membranes (3), and bacterial endophthalmitis (1). Multivariate analysis demonstrated 3 independent risk factors for keratoprosthesis loss: autoimmune cause (hazard ratio [HR], 11.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.31-43.11), ocular surface exposure requiring a concomitant tarsorrhaphy (HR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.05-11.22), and number of prior failed penetrating keratoplasties (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.18-2.28). CONCLUSIONS: The Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 seems to be a viable option for eyes that are not candidates for penetrating keratoplasty (PK). Ocular surface disease due to an autoimmune cause demonstrated the lowest retention rate. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
OBJECTIVE: To report the retention rate of the Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 and to identify risk factors for keratoprosthesis loss. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 300 eyes of 300 patients who underwent implantation of the Boston keratoprosthesis type I device between January 2003 and July 2008 by 19 surgeons at 18 medical centers. METHODS: Forms reporting preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were prospectively collected and subsequently analyzed at a central data collection site. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Keratoprosthesis retention. RESULTS: A total cumulative number of 422 life-years of device implantation are included in this analysis. The average duration of follow-up was 17.1 ± 14.8 months, with a range of 1 week to >6.1 years. Ninety-three percent of the 300 Boston keratoprosthesis implants were retained at their last follow-up, corresponding to a retention time of 396 patient-years or 1.42 years/keratoprosthesis. The probability of retention after 1 year and 2 years was 94% and 89%, respectively. During the study period, 21 (7%) eyes failed to retain the device; the reasons for keratoprosthesis loss include sterile keratolysis (9), fungal infections (8), dense retroprosthetic membranes (3), and bacterial endophthalmitis (1). Multivariate analysis demonstrated 3 independent risk factors for keratoprosthesis loss: autoimmune cause (hazard ratio [HR], 11.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.31-43.11), ocular surface exposure requiring a concomitant tarsorrhaphy (HR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.05-11.22), and number of prior failed penetrating keratoplasties (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.18-2.28). CONCLUSIONS: The Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 seems to be a viable option for eyes that are not candidates for penetrating keratoplasty (PK). Ocular surface disease due to an autoimmune cause demonstrated the lowest retention rate. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
Authors: Christopher J Rudnisky; Michael W Belin; Amit Todani; Khalid Al-Arfaj; Jared D Ament; Brian J Zerbe; Joseph B Ciolino Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Hall F Chew; Brandon D Ayres; Kristin M Hammersmith; Christopher J Rapuano; Peter R Laibson; Jonathan S Myers; Ya-Ping Jin; Elisabeth J Cohen Journal: Cornea Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.651