Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Results from the multicenter Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study.
Ophthalmology 2006; 113(10):1779.e1-7O

Abstract

PURPOSE

To report indications, practices, complications, and outcomes from the first multicenter study on the Boston Type 1 keratoprosthesis.

DESIGN

Prospective, noncomparative, interventional case series.

PARTICIPANTS

We analyzed 141 Boston Type 1 keratoprosthesis surgical procedures, from 17 surgical sites, done from January 2003 through September 2005 in 136 eyes of 133 patients.

METHODS

Forms reporting 70 preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were collected and analyzed at a central data collection site (Cornea Consultants of Albany, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Visual acuity (VA) and keratoprosthesis survival.

RESULTS

Common preoperative diagnoses were graft rejection, in 73 eyes (54%) (average prior grafts, 2.24); chemical injury (20 eyes [15%]); bullous keratopathy (19 eyes [14%]); and herpes simplex virus keratitis (9 eyes [7%]). Additionally, 82 eyes (60%) had preoperative glaucoma. Preoperative best-corrected VA ranged from 20/100 to light perception, and was <20/200 in 96% of eyes. At an average follow-up of 8.5 months (range, 0.03-24; standard deviation, 6.1; median, 12), postoperative vision improved to > or =20/200 in 57%. Among eyes at least 1 year after the operation (62 eyes), vision was > or =20/200 in 56% of eyes and > or =20/40 in 23%. At an average follow-up of 8.5 months, graft retention was 95%. Severe visual loss or failure to improve from keratoprosthesis was usually secondary to comorbidities such as advanced glaucoma, macular degeneration, or retinal detachment.

CONCLUSIONS

The Boston Type 1 keratoprosthesis seems, based on early follow-up, to be a viable option after multiple failed corneal grafts or in some situations of a poor prognosis for primary penetrating keratoplasty.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Albany Medical College, Albany, New York, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16872678

Citation

Zerbe, Brian L., et al. "Results From the Multicenter Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study." Ophthalmology, vol. 113, no. 10, 2006, pp. 1779.e1-7.
Zerbe BL, Belin MW, Ciolino JB, et al. Results from the multicenter Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(10):1779.e1-7.
Zerbe, B. L., Belin, M. W., & Ciolino, J. B. (2006). Results from the multicenter Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study. Ophthalmology, 113(10), pp. 1779.e1-7.
Zerbe BL, et al. Results From the Multicenter Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(10):1779.e1-7. PubMed PMID: 16872678.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Results from the multicenter Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study. AU - Zerbe,Brian L, AU - Belin,Michael W, AU - Ciolino,Joseph B, AU - ,, Y1 - 2006/07/26/ PY - 2005/10/26/received PY - 2006/05/09/revised PY - 2006/05/12/accepted PY - 2006/7/29/pubmed PY - 2006/10/14/medline PY - 2006/7/29/entrez SP - 1779.e1 EP - 7 JF - Ophthalmology JO - Ophthalmology VL - 113 IS - 10 N2 - PURPOSE: To report indications, practices, complications, and outcomes from the first multicenter study on the Boston Type 1 keratoprosthesis. DESIGN: Prospective, noncomparative, interventional case series. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed 141 Boston Type 1 keratoprosthesis surgical procedures, from 17 surgical sites, done from January 2003 through September 2005 in 136 eyes of 133 patients. METHODS: Forms reporting 70 preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were collected and analyzed at a central data collection site (Cornea Consultants of Albany, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual acuity (VA) and keratoprosthesis survival. RESULTS: Common preoperative diagnoses were graft rejection, in 73 eyes (54%) (average prior grafts, 2.24); chemical injury (20 eyes [15%]); bullous keratopathy (19 eyes [14%]); and herpes simplex virus keratitis (9 eyes [7%]). Additionally, 82 eyes (60%) had preoperative glaucoma. Preoperative best-corrected VA ranged from 20/100 to light perception, and was <20/200 in 96% of eyes. At an average follow-up of 8.5 months (range, 0.03-24; standard deviation, 6.1; median, 12), postoperative vision improved to > or =20/200 in 57%. Among eyes at least 1 year after the operation (62 eyes), vision was > or =20/200 in 56% of eyes and > or =20/40 in 23%. At an average follow-up of 8.5 months, graft retention was 95%. Severe visual loss or failure to improve from keratoprosthesis was usually secondary to comorbidities such as advanced glaucoma, macular degeneration, or retinal detachment. CONCLUSIONS: The Boston Type 1 keratoprosthesis seems, based on early follow-up, to be a viable option after multiple failed corneal grafts or in some situations of a poor prognosis for primary penetrating keratoplasty. SN - 1549-4713 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16872678/Results_from_the_multicenter_Boston_Type_1_Keratoprosthesis_Study_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0161-6420(06)00676-2 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -