Literature DB >> 29370031

COMPARISON OF VISUAL AND ANATOMICAL OUTCOMES OF EYES UNDERGOING TYPE I BOSTON KERATOPROSTHESIS WITH COMBINATION PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY WITH EYES WITHOUT COMBINATION VITRECTOMY.

Jennifer I Lim1, Lindsay Machen, Andrea Arteaga, Faris I Karas, Robert Hyde, Dingcai Cao, Marcia Niec, Thasarat S Vajaranant, M Soledad Cortina.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether 1-year visual and anatomical results after surgery combining pars plana vitrectomy, Boston keratoprosthesis, and a glaucoma drainage device as needed are similar, better, or worse than Boston keratoprosthesis initial implantation alone.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of adult patients undergoing Boston keratoprosthesis at our institution. Visual acuity outcomes, anatomical results, and complication rates of patients undergoing combination surgery (including pars plana vitrectomy and a posterior glaucoma drainage device) were compared with those undergoing keratoprosthesis placement alone.
RESULTS: There were 70 eyes in the keratoprosthesis alone group and 55 eyes in the keratoprosthesis with pars plana vitrectomy group. Mean follow-up durations were 54.67 months in the keratoprosthesis alone group and 48.41 months in the combination group. Baseline mean Snellen equivalent visual acuities were worse for the combination group compared with the keratoprosthesis alone group (P = 0.027). Visual acuities improved postoperatively by 1 month after keratoprosthesis implantation for both groups and improved three or more lines of Snellen acuity in the majority of eyes for both groups (≥72% by 12 months). Eyes undergoing pars plana vitrectomy had lower rates of de novo (P = 0.015) and significantly lower rates of secondary procedures (P = 0.002) at 1 year. One year complications rates for retroprosthetic membrane formation, retinal detachment, hypotony, cystoid macular edema, epiretinal membrane formation, endophthalmitis, and corneal melting were similar for both groups.
CONCLUSION: Compared with keratoprosthesis alone, combining keratoprosthesis with pars plana vitrectomy and a glaucoma drainage device as needed, resulted in lower rates of de novo glaucoma, lower rates of additional surgical procedures, similar visual acuity outcomes at 1 year, and did not result in higher complication rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29370031      PMCID: PMC6056324          DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002036

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


  27 in total

1.  Glaucoma associated with Boston type I keratoprosthesis.

Authors:  Roheena Kamyar; Jennifer S Weizer; Fernando Heitor de Paula; Joshua D Stein; Sayoko E Moroi; Denise John; David C Musch; Shahzad I Mian
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.651

2.  Visual outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis implantation as the primary penetrating corneal procedure.

Authors:  Joann J Kang; Jose de la Cruz; Maria Soledad Cortina
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.651

3.  Boston Keratoprosthesis: Outcomes and Complications: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Authors:  W Barry Lee; Roni M Shtein; Stephen C Kaufman; Sophie X Deng; Mark I Rosenblatt
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 12.079

4.  VITREORETINAL COMPLICATIONS IN EYES WITH BOSTON KERATOPROSTHESIS TYPE I.

Authors:  Pukhraj Rishi; Ekta Rishi; Vikram V Koundanya; Gaurav Mathur; Geetha Iyer; Bhaskar Srinivasan
Journal:  Retina       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.256

5.  Microbial keratitis after Boston type I keratoprosthesis implantation: incidence, organisms, risk factors, and outcomes.

Authors:  Michelle J Kim; Fei Yu; Anthony J Aldave
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 12.079

6.  Glaucoma associated with keratoprosthesis.

Authors:  P A Netland; H Terada; C H Dohlman
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  Vision-related quality-of-life assessment using NEI VFQ-25 in patients after Boston keratoprosthesis implantation.

Authors:  Maria S Cortina; Joelle A Hallak
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.651

Review 8.  Review of endophthalmitis following Boston keratoprosthesis type 1.

Authors:  Marie-Claude Robert; Krystel Moussally; Mona Harissi-Dagher
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  Vitreoretinal surgery in the setting of permanent keratoprosthesis.

Authors:  Lee Kiang; Kimberly C Sippel; Christopher E Starr; Jessica Ciralsky; Mark I Rosenblatt; Nathan M Radcliffe; Donald J D'Amico; Szilárd Kiss
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-04

10.  Outcomes of pars plana glaucoma drainage implant in Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis surgery.

Authors:  Eun S Huh; Ahmad A Aref; Thasarat S Vajaranant; Jose de la Cruz; Felix Y Chau; Maria S Cortina
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.503

View more
  2 in total

1.  Wide-field vitreoretinal surgery in eyes with Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis.

Authors:  Canan Asli Utine; Mahmut Kaya; Kıvanç Kasal
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-10-12       Impact factor: 2.031

2.  Clinical Experience in Patients with Ocular Burns Treated with Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis Implantation with or Without Prophylactic Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implantation.

Authors:  Jianjun Gu; Yuying Zhang; Jiajie Zhai; Lixia Lin; Zhancong Ou; Ting Huang; Miao Chen; Jin Zhou; Liangbo Zeng; Yuwei Xu; Jiaqi Chen
Journal:  Ophthalmol Ther       Date:  2021-12-23
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.