Background/aims To evaluate long-term visual outcomes of Boston type I keratoprosthesis (KPro) surgery and identify risk factors for visual failure.
Methods Single surgeon retrospective cohort study including 85 eyes of 74 patients who underwent KPro implantation to treat severe ocular surface disease, including limbal stem cell deficiency, postinfectious keratitis, aniridia and chemical burns. Procedures were performed at the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal from October 2008 to May 2012. All patients with at least 5 years of follow-up were included in the analysis, including eyes with repeated KPro. Main outcome measures were visual acuity (VA), visual failure, defined as a sustained worse than preoperative VA, postoperative complications, and device retention.
Results Mean follow-up was 7.2±1.3 years (±SD). Mean VA was 2.1±0.7 (logarithm of minimal angle resolution) preoperatively and 1.9±1.2 at last follow-up. There were 2.4% of patients with VA better than 20/200 preoperatively and 36.5% at last follow-up. Maintenance of improved postoperative VA was seen in 61.8% of eyes at 7 years. Preoperative factors associated with visual failure were known history of glaucoma (HR=2.7 (1.2 to 5.9), p=0.02) and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (HR=7.3 (2.5 to 21.4) p<0.01). Cumulative 8-year complication rates were 38.8% retroprosthetic membrane formation, 25.9% hypotony, 23.5% new onset glaucoma, 17.6% retinal detachment, 8.2% device extrusion and 5.9% endophthalmitis. The majority (91.8%) of eyes retained the device 8 years after implantation.
Conclusion Almost two-thirds of patients had improved VA 7 years after KPro implantation. Preoperative risk factors for visual failure were known glaucoma and Stevens-Johnson syndrome.
- ocular surface
- treatment surgery
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Contributors TN and A-AS performed a literature review. A-AS, CB and TN collected data. A-AS analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. A-AS, CB and MH-D edited and revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), conforming to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request. Deidentified participant data are available from Andrei Szigiato (ORCID: 0000-0003-0862-9068) upon request.