Rafaella Nascimento E Silva1, Lucy Q Shen2, Carolina A Chiou3, Swapna S Shanbhag4, Eleftherios I Paschalis5, Louis R Pasquale6, Kathryn A Colby7, Claes H Dohlman5, James Chodosh5, Milton R Alves8. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Ophthalmology, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Electronic address: lucy_shen@meei.harvard.edu. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Tej Kohli Cornea Institute, L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Boston Keratoprosthesis Laboratory, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 7. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 8. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess outcomes and glaucoma management in eyes with aniridia following Boston type 1 Keratoprosthesis (KPro) implantation. DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional comparative case series. METHODS: The population included patients with aniridia and patients with other preoperative diagnoses (excluding Stevens-Johnson syndrome, mucous membrane pemphigoid, and congenital disorders) who underwent KPro implantation at Massachusetts Eye and Ear with at least 2 years of follow-up. One eye per patient was selected based on the longer follow-up time. The main outcome was intermediate and long-term outcomes related to glaucoma. RESULTS: The aniridia (n = 22) and comparison (n = 61) groups had similar preoperative visual acuity (VA, mean ± standard deviation, 1.86 ± 0.52 logMAR, P = .33) and follow-up time (65.6 ± 26.3 months, P = .25). Before KPro implantation, eyes with aniridia had more glaucoma (76.2%) and glaucoma surgery (57.1%) than comparison eyes (51.8%, P = .053; 23.2%, P = .005, respectively). More Ahmed valves were co-implanted with KPro in aniridia (47.6%) vs comparison eyes (17.9%, P = .008). At final follow-up, more aniridia eyes had glaucoma (90.5%) than comparison eyes (64.3%, P = .02), but the 2 groups had similar percentages of eyes with cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) >0.8 (23.8% vs. 30.4%, P = .57) or CDR progression of ≥0.2 (42.9% vs 44.6%, P = .89, respectively). None of the eyes with prophylactic tube implantation developed glaucoma. Eyes with and without aniridia did not differ in post-KPro VA improvement (72.7%, 72.1%, P = .96), and final VA (1.28 ± 0.79 logMAR, 1.23 ± 0.98 logMAR, P = .51). CONCLUSION: Despite a higher glaucoma prevalence, eyes with aniridia achieved similar VA as comparison eyes with more than 5 years of mean follow-up time. Boston KPro offers satisfactory visual rehabilitation in aniridia when glaucoma is managed aggressively.
PURPOSE: To assess outcomes and glaucoma management in eyes with aniridia following Boston type 1 Keratoprosthesis (KPro) implantation. DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional comparative case series. METHODS: The population included patients with aniridia and patients with other preoperative diagnoses (excluding Stevens-Johnson syndrome, mucous membrane pemphigoid, and congenital disorders) who underwent KPro implantation at Massachusetts Eye and Ear with at least 2 years of follow-up. One eye per patient was selected based on the longer follow-up time. The main outcome was intermediate and long-term outcomes related to glaucoma. RESULTS: The aniridia (n = 22) and comparison (n = 61) groups had similar preoperative visual acuity (VA, mean ± standard deviation, 1.86 ± 0.52 logMAR, P = .33) and follow-up time (65.6 ± 26.3 months, P = .25). Before KPro implantation, eyes with aniridia had more glaucoma (76.2%) and glaucoma surgery (57.1%) than comparison eyes (51.8%, P = .053; 23.2%, P = .005, respectively). More Ahmed valves were co-implanted with KPro in aniridia (47.6%) vs comparison eyes (17.9%, P = .008). At final follow-up, more aniridia eyes had glaucoma (90.5%) than comparison eyes (64.3%, P = .02), but the 2 groups had similar percentages of eyes with cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) >0.8 (23.8% vs. 30.4%, P = .57) or CDR progression of ≥0.2 (42.9% vs 44.6%, P = .89, respectively). None of the eyes with prophylactic tube implantation developed glaucoma. Eyes with and without aniridia did not differ in post-KPro VA improvement (72.7%, 72.1%, P = .96), and final VA (1.28 ± 0.79 logMAR, 1.23 ± 0.98 logMAR, P = .51). CONCLUSION: Despite a higher glaucoma prevalence, eyes with aniridia achieved similar VA as comparison eyes with more than 5 years of mean follow-up time. Boston KPro offers satisfactory visual rehabilitation in aniridia when glaucoma is managed aggressively.