Christopher J Rudnisky1, Michael W Belin2, Rong Guo3, Joseph B Ciolino4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2. University of Arizona Department of Ophthalmology & Vision Science, Tucson, Arizona. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: Joseph_Ciolino@meei.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) visual outcomes of the Boston keratoprosthesis type 1. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters of 300 eyes of 300 patients who underwent implantation of a Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 device between January 2003 and July 2008 by 1 of 19 surgeons at 18 medical centers were collected. RESULTS: After an average of 17.1 ± 14.8 months, visual acuity improved significantly (P < .0001) to a mean final value of 0.89 ± 0.64 (20/150). There were also significantly fewer eyes with light perception (6.7%; n = 19; P < .0001), although 3.1% (n = 9) progressed to no light perception. There was no association between age (P = .08), sex (P = .959), operative side (P = .167), or failure (P = .494) and final visual acuity. The median time to achieve 20/200 visual acuity was 1 month (95% confidence interval 1.0-6.0) and it was retained for an average of 47.8 months. Multivariate analysis, controlling for preoperative visual acuity, demonstrated 2 factors associated with final visual outcome: chemical injury was associated with better final vision (P = .007), whereas age-related macular degeneration was associated with poorer vision (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 is an effective device for rehabilitation in advanced ocular surface disease, resulting in a significant improvement in visual acuity. Eyes achieved a mean value of 20/150 (0.89 ± 0.64 logMAR units) after 6 months and this was relatively stable thereafter. The best visual prognosis is observed in chemical injury eyes, whereas the worst prognosis is in aniridia, although the latter has limited visual potential.
PURPOSE: To report logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) visual outcomes of the Boston keratoprosthesis type 1. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters of 300 eyes of 300 patients who underwent implantation of a Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 device between January 2003 and July 2008 by 1 of 19 surgeons at 18 medical centers were collected. RESULTS: After an average of 17.1 ± 14.8 months, visual acuity improved significantly (P < .0001) to a mean final value of 0.89 ± 0.64 (20/150). There were also significantly fewer eyes with light perception (6.7%; n = 19; P < .0001), although 3.1% (n = 9) progressed to no light perception. There was no association between age (P = .08), sex (P = .959), operative side (P = .167), or failure (P = .494) and final visual acuity. The median time to achieve 20/200 visual acuity was 1 month (95% confidence interval 1.0-6.0) and it was retained for an average of 47.8 months. Multivariate analysis, controlling for preoperative visual acuity, demonstrated 2 factors associated with final visual outcome: chemical injury was associated with better final vision (P = .007), whereas age-related macular degeneration was associated with poorer vision (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 is an effective device for rehabilitation in advanced ocular surface disease, resulting in a significant improvement in visual acuity. Eyes achieved a mean value of 20/150 (0.89 ± 0.64 logMAR units) after 6 months and this was relatively stable thereafter. The best visual prognosis is observed in chemical injury eyes, whereas the worst prognosis is in aniridia, although the latter has limited visual potential.
Authors: Sina Sharifi; Hannah Sharifi; Curtis Guild; Mohammad Mirazul Islam; Khoa D Tran; Corrina Patzer; Claes H Dohlman; Eleftherios I Paschalis; Miguel Gonzalez-Andrades; James Chodosh Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Albert Santos; Luzia Diegues Silva; Luciene Barbosa de Sousa; Denise de Freitas; Lauro Augusto de Oliveira Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep Date: 2017-03-14
Authors: Allister Gibbons; Ella H Leung; Luis J Haddock; Carlos A Medina; Viviana Fernandez; Jean-Marie A Parel; Heather A Durkee; Guillermo Amescua; Eduardo C Alfonso; Victor L Perez Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2018-02-15
Authors: Sina Sharifi; Mohammad Mirazul Islam; Hannah Sharifi; Rakibul Islam; Per H Nilsson; Claes H Dohlman; Tom Eirik Mollnes; Eleftherios I Paschalis; James Chodosh Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 3.283