PURPOSE: To compare short-term outcomes of repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PK) to those of Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro). Our hypothesis was that visual outcomes were superior for KPro compared to PK. METHODS: This is a retrospective, nonrandomized, intermediate-term case series. Consecutive adults with one or more failed PKs who underwent either PK or KPro between January 2008 and December 2010 were included. Demographics, indication for the initial PK, comorbidities, concomitant procedures, and complications were considered. Only one procedure in each eye was included. All KPro procedures were retained in the analyses. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients underwent PK and 27 received KPro. Mean follow-up was 19.5 months in the PK group and 16.5 months in the KPro group. KPro eyes had worse mean preoperative vision (hand motions vs counting fingers, P=.01) and more comorbidities. In the postoperative period, 35% of PK eyes and 45% of KPro eyes attained best-ever visual acuity of 20/70. Forty-seven percent of PK eyes vs 40% of KPro eyes were able to retain this visual acuity. Two-year rate of failure to retain visual acuity better than the baseline was higher for PK eyes, though not at a statistically significant level (hazard ratio [HR]=1.67; 95% CI, 0.78-3.60; P=.19). Two-year cumulative rate of graft failure (loss of clarity for PK and removal/replacement for KPro) was higher for PK eyes (HR=3.23; 95% CI, 1.12-9.28; P=.03). Retinal detachment, endophthalmitis, and glaucoma rates were similar (P=.6 for all). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate less frequent graft failure, greater visual improvement, and greater likelihood of maintaining the visual improvement in KPro eyes vs PK.
PURPOSE: To compare short-term outcomes of repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PK) to those of Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro). Our hypothesis was that visual outcomes were superior for KPro compared to PK. METHODS: This is a retrospective, nonrandomized, intermediate-term case series. Consecutive adults with one or more failed PKs who underwent either PK or KPro between January 2008 and December 2010 were included. Demographics, indication for the initial PK, comorbidities, concomitant procedures, and complications were considered. Only one procedure in each eye was included. All KPro procedures were retained in the analyses. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients underwent PK and 27 received KPro. Mean follow-up was 19.5 months in the PK group and 16.5 months in the KPro group. KPro eyes had worse mean preoperative vision (hand motions vs counting fingers, P=.01) and more comorbidities. In the postoperative period, 35% of PK eyes and 45% of KPro eyes attained best-ever visual acuity of 20/70. Forty-seven percent of PK eyes vs 40% of KPro eyes were able to retain this visual acuity. Two-year rate of failure to retain visual acuity better than the baseline was higher for PK eyes, though not at a statistically significant level (hazard ratio [HR]=1.67; 95% CI, 0.78-3.60; P=.19). Two-year cumulative rate of graft failure (loss of clarity for PK and removal/replacement for KPro) was higher for PK eyes (HR=3.23; 95% CI, 1.12-9.28; P=.03). Retinal detachment, endophthalmitis, and glaucoma rates were similar (P=.6 for all). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate less frequent graft failure, greater visual improvement, and greater likelihood of maintaining the visual improvement in KPro eyes vs PK.
Authors: Elvin H Yildiz; Eliza Hoskins; Nicole Fram; Christopher J Rapuano; Kristin M Hammersmith; Peter R Laibson; Elisabeth J Cohen Journal: Cornea Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: S Grover; G A Fishman; R J Anderson; M S Tozatti; J R Heckenlively; R G Weleber; A O Edwards; J Brown Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Joseph B Ciolino; Michael W Belin; Amit Todani; Khalid Al-Arfaj; Christopher J Rudnisky Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Divya Srikumaran; Beatriz Munoz; Anthony J Aldave; James V Aquavella; Sadeer B Hannush; Robert Schultze; Michael Belin; Esen Karamursel Akpek Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-07-11 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