Design and Outcomes of a Novel Keratoprosthesis: Addressing Unmet Needs in End-Stage Cicatricial Corneal Blindness.
Adult
Aged
Artificial Organs
Blindness
/ etiology
Cicatrix
/ complications
Cornea
/ surgery
Corneal Diseases
/ complications
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Prostheses and Implants
Prosthesis Design
Prosthesis Implantation
/ methods
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Visual Acuity
Young Adult
Journal
Cornea
ISSN: 1536-4798
Titre abrégé: Cornea
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8216186
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
15
11
2019
medline:
6
1
2021
entrez:
15
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The most commonly applied prosthetic devices for corneal blindness in the setting of severe cicatricial keratoconjunctivitis are the Boston keratoprosthesis type II and the modified osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis, with these requiring either normal eyelid skin or a healthy cuspid tooth, respectively. For patients with neither attribute, we developed a new keratoprosthesis device combining positive aspects of both Boston keratoprosthesis type II and modified osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis, which we have named the "Lux." Short-term postoperative outcomes for the Lux keratoprosthesis, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), device retention, and complications, were examined in a retrospective case series of 9 eyes of 9 patients implanted at 4 centers. Seven of 9 (77.8%) eyes had cicatricial corneal blindness due to autoimmune disease and 2 (22.2%) from severe burns. Preoperative BCVA was ≤hand motions in all patients. Three (33.3%) had previously received at least 1 keratoprosthesis in the affected eye, and 4 (44.4%) had previously undergone ≥1 therapeutic keratoplasty. One patient had 19 previous eye surgeries. The mean duration of postoperative follow-up was 18.7 months (range 7-28 months). BCVA of ≥20/200 was achieved in all 9 patients, with 2 (22.2%) reaching 20/20 at the last examination, and all 9 (100%) of the devices were retained. One recipient developed a retinal detachment 2 months after implantation. Two (22.2%) patients required placement of a glaucoma drainage device. The Lux keratoprosthesis was developed for patients with severe cicatricial keratoconjunctivitis who were otherwise not candidates for existing keratoprosthesis designs. Short-term outcomes after implantation of the Lux keratoprosthesis were encouraging.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31724985
doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002207
pii: 00003226-202004000-00014
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
484-490Références
Dohlman CH, Schneider HA, Doane MG. Prosthokeratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 1974;77:694–770.
Gonzalez-Andrades M, Sharifi R, Islam MM, et al. Improving the practicality and safety of artificial corneas: pre-assembly and gamma-rays sterilization of the Boston keratoprosthesis. Ocul Surf. 2018;16:322–330.
Pujari S, Siddique SS, Dohlman CH, et al. The Boston keratoprosthesis type II: the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary experience. Cornea. 2011;30:1298–1303.
Strampelli B. Osteo-odontokeratoprosthesis [in Italian]. Ann Ottalmol Clin Ocul. 1963;89:1039–1044.
Hille K, Grabner G, Liu C, et al. Standards for modified osteoodontokeratoprosthesis (OOKP) surgery according to Strampelli and Falcinelli: the Rome-Vienna protocol. Cornea. 2005;24:895–908.
Iyer G, Srinivasan B, Agarwal S, et al. Laminar resorption in modified osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis procedure: a cause for concern. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158:263–269.e2.
Basu S, Pillai VS, Sangwan VS. Mucosal complications of modified osteo-odonto keratoprosthesis in chronic Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:867–873.e2.
Michael R, Charoenrook V, de la Paz MF, et al. Long-term functional and anatomical results of osteo- and osteoodonto-keratoprosthesis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;246:1133–1137.
Charoenrook V, Michael R, de la Paz MF, et al. Comparison of long-term results between osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis and tibial bone keratoprosthesis. Ocul Surf. 2018;16:259–264.
Zhou C, Lei F, Chodosh J, et al. The role of titanium surface microtopography on adhesion, proliferation, transformation, and matrix deposition of corneal cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57:1927–1938.
Belin MW, Guell JL, Grabner G. Suggested guidelines for reporting keratoprosthesis results: Consensus opinion of the Cornea Society, Asia Cornea Society, EuCornea, PanCornea, and the KPro Study Group. Cornea. 2016;35:143–144.
Iyer G, Srinivasan B, Agarwal S, et al. Bone augmentation of the osteo-odonto alveolar lamina in MOOKP—will it delay laminar resorption? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253:1137–1141.
Gilbert AL, Jakobiec FA, Chodosh J, et al. A comparison of retrokeratoprosthetic membrane and conjunctival inflammatory responses to silicone oil. J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect. 2014;4:15.
Avadhanam VS, Zarei-Ghanavati M, Bardan AS, et al. When there is no tooth—looking beyond the Falcinelli MOOKP. Ocul Surf. 2019;17:4–8.
Basu S, Sureka S, Shukla R, et al. Boston type 1 based keratoprosthesis (Auro KPro) and its modification (LVP KPro) in chronic Stevens Johnson syndrome. BMJ Case Rep. 2014;2014:bcr2013202756. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2013-202756.
doi: 10.1136/bcr-2013-202756
Basu S, Nagpal R, Serna-Ojeda JC, et al. LVP keratoprosthesis: anatomical and functional outcomes in bilateral end-stage corneal blindness. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018. pii: bjophthalmol-2017-311649. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311649. [epub ahead of print].
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311649
Iyer G, Srinivasan B, Agarwal S, et al. Structural & functional rehabilitation in eyes with lamina resorption following MOOKP—can the lamina be salvaged? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252:781–790.
Salvador-Culla B, Jeong KJ, Kolovou PE, et al. Titanium coating of the Boston keratoprosthesis. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5:17.
Yuan Z, Sun H, Yuan J. A 1-year study on carbon, titanium surface-modified intraocular lens in rabbit eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;242:1008–1013.
Bakshi SK, Paschalis EI, Graney J, et al. Lucia and beyond: development of an affordable keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2019;38:492–497.
Wagoner MD. Chemical injuries of the eye: current concepts in pathophysiology and therapy. Surv Ophthalmol. 1997;41:275–313.
Todani A, Ciolino JB, Ament JD, et al. Titanium back plate for a PMMA keratoprosthesis: clinical outcomes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249:1515–1518.
Lee R, Khoueir Z, Tsikata E, et al. Long-term visual outcomes and complications of Boston keratoprosthesis type II implantation. Ophthalmology. 2017;124:27–35.
Netland PA, Terada H, Dohlman CH. Glaucoma associated with keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:751–757.
Kumar RS, Tan DT, Por YM, et al. Glaucoma management in patients with osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP): the Singapore OOKP Study. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:354–360.