You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
Keratoprostheses: are we there yet?
  1. Venkata S Avadhanam1,2,
  2. Christopher S C Liu1,2,3
  1. 1Sussex Eye Hospital, Brighton BN2 5BF
  2. 2Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton
  3. 3Tongdean Eye Clinic, Hove BN3 6QB
  1. Correspondence to Christopher S C Liu, Sussex Eye Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton, BN2 5BF, UK; cscliu{at}aol.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-304994

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Key Words:

    Since the dawn of the 18th century, efforts to develop an ideal keratoprosthesis (KPro) have not yielded the dream KPro yet, but the journey to such an invention has given us a few notable devices and valuable experience with a number of biomaterials. The invention of a KPro started with a piece of silver-rimmed glass proposed by Pellier de Quengsy.1 We now have the latest iteration of Boston Type 1 KPro with a porous titanium back plate.2 Although the Pintucci KPro (Dacron mesh skirt and PMMA optic) and the AlphaCor (hydrogel matrix) were in clinical use for a good length of time, they failed to retain over the long term.1 We learnt that bio-integration is essential for the skirt and bio-inertness for the optic. Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) has largely solved the search for a stable and durable optic though the search for an ideal skirt material is still ethereal.

    As we speak, the Boston type-1 KPro and the osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP) have emerged as the most sustainable devices. The Boston KPro …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing Interest None.

    Linked Articles