Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

20 Years of Advances in Keratoprosthesis

  • Ocular Prosthesis (J. De la Cruz, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Ophthalmology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Keratoprosthesis (KPro) has revolutionized the treatment of patients with severe corneal diseases who do not benefit from allogeneic corneal transplantation. Since the introduction of KPro over 200 years ago, numerous designs and techniques have been suggested. Of these, the Boston keratoprosthesis and osteo-odonto keratoprosthesis (OOKP) are the two most commonly used keratoprostheses worldwide.

Recent Findings

Over the past few decades, various improvements in designs, surgical techniques, and postoperative care have expanded the indications for the Boston KPro. With better control of devastating ocular complications, such as endophthalmitis and extrusion, glaucoma has become the most common long-term complication leading to blindness. OOKP involves a more complex surgical procedure compared to the Boston KPro, but has gained traction due to its effectiveness in treating very severe ocular surface diseases.

Summary

The current trend of Boston KPro studies focuses on better intraocular assessment tools to diagnose and manage glaucoma, as well as alternative biomaterials to improve biocompatibility and retention rates. Recent improvements in OOKP mainly focus on augmentation techniques of the biological skirt to prevent or decrease both keratolysis and laminar resorption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Mariotti SP. World Health Organization. Global Data on Visual Impairments 2010. 2012.

  2. Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(5):614–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Klufas MA, Colby KA. The Boston Keratoprosthesis. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2010;50(3):161–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Doane MG, Dohlman CH, Bearse G. Fabrication of a keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 1996;15(2):179–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dudenhoefer EJ, Nouri M, Gipson IK, Baratz KH, Tisdale AS, Dryja TP, et al. Histopathology of explanted collar button keratoprostheses: a clinicopathologic correlation. Cornea. 2003;22(5):424–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. •• Robert MC, Dohlman CH. A review of corneal melting after Boston Keratoprosthesis. Semin Ophthalmol. 2014;29(5–6):349–57. A review of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of corneal melting as a side effect caused by Boston KPro.

  7. •• Ciolino JB, Belin MW, Todani A, Al-Arfaj K, Rudnisky CJ, Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1 Study Group. Retention of the Boston Keratoprosthesis type 1: multicenter study results. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(6):1195–200. This article is a cohort study reporting the continued retention rate of Boston KPro procedures, as well as the risks of failed retention.

  8. Rudnisky CJ, Belin MW, Todani A, Al-Arfaj K, Ament JD, Zerbe BJ, et al. Risk factors for the development of retroprosthetic membranes with Boston keratoprosthesis type 1: multicenter study results. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(5):951–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Chang HY, Luo ZK, Chodosh J, Dohlman CH, Colby KA. Primary implantation of type I Boston keratoprosthesis in nonautoimmune corneal diseases. Cornea. 2015;34(3):264–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. • Al Arfaj K. Boston keratoprosthesis—clinical outcomes with wider geographic use and expanding indications—a systematic review. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2015;29(3):212–21. A comprehensive review of Boston keratoprosthesis using the past 10 years of data.

  11. Pujari S, Siddique SS, Dohlman CH, Chodosh J. The Boston keratoprosthesis type II: the Massachusetts eye and ear infirmary experience. Cornea. 2011;30(12):1298–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sivaraman KR, Aakalu VK, Sajja K, Cortina MS, de la Cruz J, Setabutr P. Use of a porous polyethylene lid spacer for management of eyelid retraction in patients with Boston type II keratoprosthesis. Orbit. 2013;32(4):247–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Khan B, Dudenhoefer EJ, Dohlman CH. Keratoprosthesis: an update. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2001;12(4):282–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dohlman C, Harissi-Dagher M, Khan BF. Introduction to the use of the Boston keratoprosthesis. 2006.

  15. Todani A, Ciolino JB, Ament JD, Colby KA, Pineda R, Belin MW, et al. Titanium back plate for a PMMA keratoprosthesis: clinical outcomes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249(10):1515–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Robert MC, Harissi-Dagher M. Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis: the CHUM experience. Can J Ophthalmol. 2011;46(2):164–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jasinskas V, Rudalevicius P, Miliauskas A, Milcius D, Jurkunas UV. Keratoprosthesis surgery as an alternative to keratoplasty. Medicina (Kaunas). 2013;49(6):291–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chew HF, Ayres BD, Hammersmith KM, Rapuano CJ, Laibson PR, Myers JS, et al. Boston keratoprosthesis outcomes and complications. Cornea. 2009;28(9):989–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Akpek EK, Harissi-Dagher M, Petrarca R, Butrus SI, Pineda R, 2nd, Aquavella JV, et al. Outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis in aniridia: a retrospective multicenter study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144(2):227–31.

  20. Zerbe BL, Belin MW, Ciolino JB, Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study Group. Results from the multicenter Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(10):1779.e1,1779.e7.

  21. Ciolino JB, Dohlman CH. Biologic keratoprosthesis materials. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2009 Winter;49(1):1–9.

  22. Hassanaly SI, Talajic JC, Harissi-Dagher M. Outcomes following Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation in aniridia patients at the University of Montreal. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158(2):270,276.e1.

  23. Harissi-Dagher M, Khan BF, Schaumberg DA, Dohlman CH. Importance of nutrition to corneal grafts when used as a carrier of the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2007;26(5):564–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baum JP, Maurice DM, McCarey BE. The active and passive transport of water across the corneal endothelium. Exp Eye Res. 1984;39(3):335–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Maurice DM. Passive ion fluxes across the corneal endothelium. Curr Eye Res. 1985;4(4):339–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jue B, Maurice DM. The mechanical properties of the rabbit and human cornea. J Biomech. 1986;19(10):847–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Khan BF, Harissi-Dagher M, Khan DM, Dohlman CH. Advances in Boston keratoprosthesis: enhancing retention and prevention of infection and inflammation. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2007 Spring;47(2):61–71.

  28. Gomaa A, Comyn O, Liu C. Keratoprostheses in clinical practice—a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010;38(2):211–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dohlman C, Harissi-Dagher M, Graney J. The Boston keratoprosthesis: a new threadless design. Digital J Ophthalmol. 2007;13(3).

  30. Traish AS, Chodosh J. Expanding application of the Boston type I keratoprosthesis due to advances in design and improved post-operative therapeutic strategies. Semin Ophthalmol. 2010;25(5–6):239–43.

  31. Ament JD, Spurr-Michaud SJ, Dohlman CH, Gipson IK. The Boston Keratoprosthesis: comparing corneal epithelial cell compatibility with titanium and PMMA. Cornea. 2009;28(7):808–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Gelfand L. Exciting news for European KPro users. Boston KPro News. 2014;2014:10.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Aldave AJ, Sangwan VS, Basu S, Basak SK, Hovakimyan A, Gevorgyan O, et al. International results with the Boston type I keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(8):1530–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Greiner MA, Li JY, Mannis MJ. Longer-term vision outcomes and complications with the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis at the University of California, Davis. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(8):1543–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. de la Paz MF, Stoiber J, de Rezende Couto Nascimento V, de Toledo JA, Seyeddain O, Hitzl W, et al. Anatomical survival and visual prognosis of Boston type I keratoprosthesis in challenging cases. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(1):83–90.

  36. Wang Q, Harissi-Dagher M. Characteristics and Management of Patients With Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Explantation—the University of Montreal Hospital Center Experience. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158(6):1297,1304.e1.

  37. Utine CA, Tzu JH, Akpek EK. Clinical features and prognosis of Boston type I keratoprosthesis-associated corneal melt. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2011;19(6):413–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hicks CR, Crawford GJ. Melting after keratoprosthesis implantation: the effects of medroxyprogesterone. Cornea. 2003;22(6):497–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fitton JH, Ziegelaar BW, Hicks CR, Clayton AB, Crawford GJ, Constable IJ, et al. Assessment of anticollagenase treatments after insertion of a keratoprosthetic material in the rabbit cornea. Cornea. 1998;17(1):108–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Antao SF, Ayoub T, Tahir H, Parmar DN. Stabilization of bilateral progressive rheumatoid corneal melt with infliximab. Case Rep Ophthalmol Med. 2012;2012:173793.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Ciralsky J, Papaliodis GN, Foster CS, Dohlman CH, Chodosh J. Keratoprosthesis in autoimmune disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2010;18(4):275–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sivaraman KR, Hou JH, Allemann N, de la Cruz J, Cortina MS. Retroprosthetic membrane and risk of sterile keratolysis in patients with Type I Boston keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;155(5):814,822.e2.

  43. Aldave AJ, Kamal KM, Vo RC, Yu F. The Boston type I keratoprosthesis: improving outcomes and expanding indications. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(4):640–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Harissi-Dagher M, Beyer J, Dohlman CH. The role of soft contact lenses as an adjunct to the Boston keratoprosthesis. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2008;48(2):43–51.

  45. Thomas M, Shorter E, Joslin CE, McMahon TJ, Cortina MS. Contact lens use in patients with boston keratoprosthesis Type 1: Fitting, management, and complications. Eye Contact Lens. 2015 May 23.

  46. Kammerdiener LL, Speiser JL, Aquavella JV, Harissi-Dagher M, Dohlman CH, Chodosh J, et al. Protective effect of soft contact lenses after Boston keratoprosthesis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015 Aug 14.

  47. Kruh JN, Kruh-Garcia NA, Foster CS. Evaluation of the effect of N-acetylcysteine on protein deposition on contact lenses in patients with the Boston keratoprosthesis Type I. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2015;31(6):314–22.

  48. Arafat SN, Robert MC, Shukla AN, Dohlman CH, Chodosh J, Ciolino JB. UV cross-linking of donor corneas confers resistance to keratolysis. Cornea. 2014;33(9):955–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Robert MC, Arafat SN, Ciolino JB. Collagen cross-linking of the Boston keratoprosthesis donor carrier to prevent corneal melting in high-risk patients. Eye Contact Lens. 2014;40(6):376–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Fernandez AG, Radcliffe NM, Sippel KC, Rosenblatt MI, Sood P, Starr CE, et al. Boston type I keratoprosthesis-donor cornea interface evaluated by high-definition spectral-domain anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:1355–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Behlau I, Martin KV, Martin JN, Naumova EN, Cadorette JJ, Sforza JT, et al. Infectious endophthalmitis in Boston keratoprosthesis: incidence and prevention. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(7):e546–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Robert MC, Moussally K, Harissi-Dagher M. Review of endophthalmitis following Boston keratoprosthesis type 1. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(6):776–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Fintelmann RE, Maguire JI, Ho AC, Chew HF, Ayres BD. Characteristics of endophthalmitis in patients with the Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2009;28(8):877–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Yu JF, Huang YF. Characteristics of endophthalmitis with Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2012;31(5):594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ormerod LD, Becker LE, Cruise RJ, Grohar HI, Paton BG, Frederick AR Jr, et al. Endophthalmitis caused by the coagulase-negative staphylococci. 2. Factors influencing presentation after cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 1993;100(5):724–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kim MJ, Yu F, Aldave AJ. Microbial keratitis after Boston type I keratoprosthesis implantation: incidence, organisms, risk factors, and outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(11):2209–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Nouri M, Terada H, Alfonso EC, Foster CS, Durand ML, Dohlman CH. Endophthalmitis after keratoprosthesis: incidence, bacterial causes, and risk factors. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(4):484–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Barnes SD, Dohlman CH, Durand ML. Fungal colonization and infection in Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2007;26(1):9–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Jain V, Mhatre K, Shome D, Pineda R. Fungal keratitis with the type 1 Boston keratoprosthesis: early Indian experience. Cornea. 2012;31(7):841–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Li JY, Greiner MA, Brandt JD, Lim MC, Mannis MJ. Long-term complications associated with glaucoma drainage devices and Boston keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152(2):209–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Rai R, Shorter E, Cortina MS, McMahon T, de la Cruz J. Contact lens surveillance cultures in Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis patients. Eye Contact Lens. 2013;39(2):175–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Robert MC, Eid EP, Saint-Antoine P, Harissi-Dagher M. Microbial colonization and antibacterial resistance patterns after Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(8):1521–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Jassim SH, Sivaraman KR, Jimenez JC, Jaboori AH, Federle MJ, de la Cruz J, et al. Bacteria colonizing the ocular surface in eyes with Boston Type 1 keratoprosthesis: analysis of biofilm-forming capability and vancomycin tolerance. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(8):4689–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Georgalas I, Kanelopoulos AJ, Petrou P, Ladas I, Gotzaridis E. Presumed endophthalmitis following Boston keratoprosthesis treated with 25 gauge vitrectomy: a report of three cases. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010;248(3):447–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Prescott C, Chodosh J. Boston Keratoprosthesis in the management of limbal stem cell failure. In: Copeland R, Afshari N, editors. Principles and practice of cornea; 2013. p. 1194,1194-1201.

  66. Netland PA, Terada H, Dohlman CH. Glaucoma associated with keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(4):751–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Bradley JC, Hernandez EG, Schwab IR, Mannis MJ. Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis: the university of California Davis experience. Cornea. 2009;28(3):321–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. • Crnej A, Paschalis EI, Salvador-Culla B, Tauber A, Drnovsek-Olup B, Shen LQ, et al. Glaucoma progression and role of glaucoma surgery in patients with Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2014;33(4):349–54. An article that evaluates glaucoma and the role of glaucoma surgery in Boston KPro patients.

  69. Talajic JC, Agoumi Y, Gagne S, Moussally K, Harissi-Dagher M. Prevalence, progression, and impact of glaucoma on vision after Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(2):267,274.e1.

  70. Panarelli JF, Ko A, Sidoti PA, Garcia JP, Banitt MR. Angle closure after Boston keratoprosthesis. J Glaucoma. 2013;22(9):725–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Kang JJ, Allemann N, Cruz Jde L, Cortina MS. Serial analysis of anterior chamber depth and angle status using anterior segment optical coherence tomography after boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2013;32(10):1369–74.

  72. Garcia JP Jr, de la Cruz J, Rosen RB, Buxton DF. Imaging implanted keratoprostheses with anterior-segment optical coherence tomography and ultrasound biomicroscopy. Cornea. 2008;27(2):180–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Sigal IA, Flanagan JG, Ethier CR. Factors influencing optic nerve head biomechanics. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(11):4189–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Estrovich IE, Shen C, Chu Y, Downs JC, Gardiner S, Straiko M, et al. Schiotz tonometry accurately measures intraocular pressure in Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis eyes. Cornea. 2015;34(6):682–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Todani A, Behlau I, Fava MA, Cade F, Cherfan DG, Zakka FR, et al. Intraocular pressure measurement by radio wave telemetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(13):9573–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. •• Kim YW, Kim MJ, Park KH, Jeoung JW, Kim SH, Jang CI, et al. Preliminary study on implantable inductive-type sensor for continuous monitoring of intraocular pressure. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015 Jul 6. A preliminary study on a promising technology to control glaucoma.

  77. •• Melki S, Todani A, Cherfan G. An implantable intraocular pressure transducer: initial safety outcomes. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(10):1221–5. First report of the implantation of a wireless intraocular pressure transducer. The results are promising.

  78. Qian CX, Hassanaly S, Harissi-Dagher M. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography in the long-term follow-up and detection of glaucoma in Boston type I keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(2):317–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Banitt M. Evaluation and management of glaucoma after keratoprosthesis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2011;22(2):133–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Huh ES, Aref AA, Vajaranant TS, de la Cruz J, Chau FY, Cortina MS. Outcomes of pars plana glaucoma drainage implant in Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis surgery. J Glaucoma. 2014;23(1):e39–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Kamyar R, Weizer JS, de Paula FH, Stein JD, Moroi SE, John D, et al. Glaucoma associated with Boston type I keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2012;31(2):134–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Vajaranant TS, Blair MP, McMahon T, Wilensky JT, de la Cruz J. Special considerations for pars plana tube-shunt placement in Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(11):1480–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Rivier D, Paula JS, Kim E, Dohlman CH, Grosskreutz CL. Glaucoma and keratoprosthesis surgery: role of adjunctive cyclophotocoagulation. J Glaucoma. 2009;18(4):321–4.

  84. Patel S, Takusagawa H, Shen L, Dohlman C, Grosskreutz C. Long-term complications associated with glaucoma drainage devices and Boston keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(1):207,8; author reply 208–9.

  85. Hou JH, Sivaraman KR, de la Cruz J, Lin AY, Cortina MS. Histopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of melt-associated retroprosthetic membranes in the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(9):1133–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Dokey A, Ramulu PY, Utine CA, Tzu JH, Eberhart CG, Shan S, et al. Chronic hypotony associated with the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(2):266,271.e1.

  87. Kiang L, Sippel KC, Starr CE, Ciralsky J, Rosenblatt MI, Radcliffe NM, et al. Vitreoretinal surgery in the setting of permanent keratoprosthesis. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(4):487–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Chak G, Aquavella JV. A safe Nd:YAG retroprosthetic membrane removal technique for keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2010;29(10):1169–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Goldman DR, Hubschman JP, Aldave AJ, Chiang A, Huang JS, Bourges JL, et al. Postoperative posterior segment complications in eyes treated with the Boston type I keratoprosthesis. Retina. 2013;33(3):532–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Modjtahedi BS, Eliott D. Vitreoretinal complications of the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Semin Ophthalmol. 2014;29(5–6):338–48.

  91. Nouri M, Durand ML, Dohlman CH. Sudden reversible vitritis after keratoprosthesis: an immune phenomenon? Cornea. 2005;24(8):915–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Grassi CM, Crnej A, Paschalis EI, Colby KA, Dohlman CH, Chodosh J. Idiopathic vitritis in the setting of Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2015;34(2):165–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Grassi CM, Cruzat A, Taniguchi EV, Crnej A, Colby KA, Dohlman CH, et al. Periprosthetic tissue loss in patients with idiopathic vitreous inflammation after the boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2015 Jul 29.

  94. Patel AP, Wu EI, Ritterband DC, Seedor JA. Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis: the New York Eye and Ear experience. Eye (Lond). 2012;26(3):418–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Verdejo-Gomez L, Pelaez N, Gris O, Guell JL. The Boston Type I keratoprosthesis: an assessment of its efficacy and safety. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2011;42(6):446–52.

  96. Klufas MA, Yannuzzi NA, D’Amico DJ, Kiss S. Vitreoretinal aspects of permanent keratoprosthesis. Surv Ophthalmol. 2015;60(3):216–28.

  97. Kang JJ, de la Cruz J, Cortina MS. Visual outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis implantation as the primary penetrating corneal procedure. Cornea. 2012;31(12):1436–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Aquavella JV, Chak G. Infant Keratoprosthesis. In: Copeland RA, Afshari NA, editors. Principles and Practice of Cornea. 1st ed.; 2013. p. 1183,1183-1193.

  99. Aquavella JV, Gearinger MD, Akpek EK, McCormick GJ. Pediatric keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(5):989–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Nallasamy S, Colby K. Keratoprosthesis: procedure of choice for corneal opacities in children? Semin Ophthalmol. 2010;25(5–6):244–8.

  101. Rachitskaya AV, Moysidis SN, Miller D, Perez VL, Banitt MR, Alfonso EC, et al. Streptococcal endophthalmitis in pediatric keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(7):1506,7.e1.

  102. •• Avadhanam VS, Smith HE, Liu C. Keratoprostheses for corneal blindness: a review of contemporary devices. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:697–720. A review of modern keratoprosthesis procedures and the history that lead up to them.

  103. Liu C, Hille K, Tan D, Hicks C, Herold J. Keratoprosthesis surgery. Dev Ophthalmol. 2008;41:171–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Hille K, Grabner G, Liu C, Colliardo P, Falcinelli G, Taloni M, et al. Standards for modified osteoodontokeratoprosthesis (OOKP) surgery according to Strampelli and Falcinelli: the Rome-Vienna Protocol. Cornea. 2005;24(8):895–908.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. De La Paz MF, De Toledo JA, Charoenrook V, Sel S, Temprano J, Barraquer RI, et al. Impact of clinical factors on the long-term functional and anatomic outcomes of osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis and tibial bone keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(5):829,839.e1.

  106. Falcinelli G, Falsini B, Taloni M, Colliardo P, Falcinelli G. Modified osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis for treatment of corneal blindness: long-term anatomical and functional outcomes in 181 cases. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(10):1319–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Weisshuhn K, Berg I, Tinner D, Kunz C, Bornstein MM, Steineck M, et al. Osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP) and the testing of three different adhesives for bonding bovine teeth with optical poly-(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) cylinder. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(7):980–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Iyer G, Srinivasan B, Agarwal S, Shetty R, Krishnamoorthy S, Balekudaru S, et al. Glaucoma in modified osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis eyes: role of additional stage 1A and Ahmed glaucoma drainage device-technique and timing. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;159(3):482,9.e2.

  109. Iyer G, Srinivasan B, Agarwal S, Rishi E, Rishi P, Rajan G, et al. Bone augmentation of the osteo-odonto alveolar lamina in MOOKP–will it delay laminar resorption? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253(7):1137–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Iyer G, Pillai VS, Srinivasan B, Falcinelli G, Padmanabhan P, Guruswami S, et al. Modified osteo-odonto keratoprosthesis–the Indian experience–results of the first 50 cases. Cornea. 2010;29(7):771–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Liu C, Okera S, Tandon R, Herold J, Hull C, Thorp S. Visual rehabilitation in end-stage inflammatory ocular surface disease with the osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis: results from the UK. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(9):1211–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Marchi V, Ricci R, Pecorella I, Ciardi A, Di Tondo U. Osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis. Description of surgical technique with results in 85 patients. Cornea. 1994;13(2):125–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Ricci R, Pecorella I, Ciardi A, Della Rocca C, Di Tondo U, Marchi V. Strampelli’s osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis. Clinical and histological long-term features of three prostheses. Br J Ophthalmol. 1992;76(4):232–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Stoiber J, Csaky D, Schedle A, Ruckhofer J, Grabner G. Histopathologic findings in explanted osteo-odontokeratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2002;21(4):400–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Iyer G, Srinivasan B, Agarwal S, Rachapalle SR. Laminar resorption in modified osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis procedure: a cause for concern. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158(2):263,269.e2.

  116. Iyer G, Srinivasan B, Agarwal S, Shanmugasundaram S, Rajan G. Structural & functional rehabilitation in eyes with lamina resorption following MOOKP–can the lamina be salvaged? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(5):781–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Fong KC, Ferrett CG, Tandon R, Paul B, Herold J, Liu CS. Imaging of osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis by electron beam tomography. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(8):956–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Sipkova Z, Lam FC, Francis I, Herold J, Liu C. Serial 3-dimensional computed tomography and a novel method of volumetric analysis for the evaluation of the osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2013;32(4):401–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Norris JM, Kishikova L, Avadhanam VS, Koumellis P, Francis IS, Liu CS. Comparison of 640-Slice Multidetector Computed Tomography Versus 32-Slice MDCT for Imaging of the Osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis Lamina. Cornea. 2015;34(8):888–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Berg BI, Dagassan-Berndt D, Goldblum D, Kunz C. Cone-beam computed tomography for planning and assessing surgical outcomes of osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2015;34(4):482–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Hille K, Hille A, Ruprecht KW. Medium term results in keratoprostheses with biocompatible and biological haptic. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006;244(6):696–704.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Kumar RS, Tan DT, Por YM, Oen FT, Hoh ST, Parthasarathy A, et al. Glaucoma management in patients with osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP): the Singapore OOKP Study. J Glaucoma. 2009;18(5):354–60.

  123. Iyer G, Srinivasan B. Glaucoma with modified osteo-odonto keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2012;31(9):1092.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Falcinelli GC, Falsini B, Taloni M, Piccardi M, Falcinelli G. Detection of glaucomatous damage in patients with osteo-odontokeratoprosthesis. Br J Ophthalmol. 1995;79(2):129–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. de Araujo AL, Charoenrook V, de la Paz MF, Temprano J, Barraquer RI, Michael R. The role of visual evoked potential and electroretinography in the preoperative assessment of osteo-keratoprosthesis or osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90(6):519–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Lee RM, Al Raqqad N, Gomaa A, Steel DH, Bloom PA, Liu CS. Endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation in osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP) eyes. J Glaucoma. 2011;20(1):68,9; author reply 69.

  127. Tan DT, Tay AB, Theng JT, Lye KW, Parthasarathy A, Por YM, et al. Keratoprosthesis surgery for end-stage corneal blindness in Asian eyes. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(3):503,510.e3.

  128. Lim LS, Ang CL, Wong E, Wong DW, Tan DT. Vitreoretinal complications and vitreoretinal surgery in osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(2):349–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. • Lee RM, Ong GL, Lam FC, White J, Crook D, Liu CS, et al. Optical functional performance of the osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2014;33(10):1038–45. An evaluation of overall OOKP performance.

  130. Basu S, Pillai VS, Sangwan VS. Mucosal complications of modified osteo-odonto keratoprosthesis in chronic Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(5):867,873.e2.

  131. Iyer G, Srinivasan B, Agarwal S, Barbhaya R. Visual rehabilitation with keratoprosthesis after tenonplasty as the primary globe-saving procedure for severe ocular chemical injuries. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;250(12):1787–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Norris JH, Carpenter D, Al Raqqad N, Brittain P, Daya S, Liu C, et al. Indications for orbital decompression for patients undergoing keratoprosthesis surgery. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;28(5):346–9.

  133. Tan A, Tan DT, Tan XW, Mehta JS. Osteo-odonto keratoprosthesis: systematic review of surgical outcomes and complication rates. Ocul Surf. 2012;10(1):15–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Avadhanam VS, Herold J, Thorp S, Liu CS. Mitomycin-C for mucous membrane overgrowth in OOKP eyes. Cornea. 2014;33(9):981–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Liu C, Paul B, Tandon R, Lee E, Fong K, Mavrikakis I, et al. The osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP). Semin Ophthalmol. 2005;20(2):113–28.

  136. Chirila TV. An overview of the development of artificial corneas with porous skirts and the use of PHEMA for such an application. Biomaterials. 2001;22(24):3311–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Hicks CR, Crawford GJ, Dart JK, Grabner G, Holland EJ, Stulting RD, et al. AlphaCor: clinical outcomes. Cornea. 2006;25(9):1034–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Chirila TV, Vijayasekaran S, Horne R, Chen YC, Dalton PD, Constable IJ, et al. Interpenetrating polymer network (IPN) as a permanent joint between the elements of a new type of artificial cornea. J Biomed Mater Res. 1994;28(6):745–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Ghaffariyeh A, Honarpisheh N, Karkhaneh A, Abudi R, Moroz ZI, Peyman A, et al. Fyodorov-Zuev keratoprosthesis implantation: long-term results in patients with multiple failed corneal grafts. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249(1):93–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Huang Y, Dong Y, Wang L, Du G, Yu J, Song J, et al. Long-term outcomes of MICOF keratoprosthesis in the end stage of autoimmune dry eyes: an experience in China. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(1):28–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Wang L, Huang Y, Du G, Dong Y, Guo H, Wang D, et al. Long-term outcomes and complications of Moscow Eye Microsurgery Complex in Russia (MICOF) keratoprosthesis following ocular surface burns: clinical experience in China. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015.

  142. Al Arfaj K. Four-year outcomes and complications of Boston keratoprosthesis type I implantation in the Middle East. Spektrum der Augenheilkunde 2014.

  143. Lekhanont K, Thaweesit P, Muntham D, Chuckpaiwong V, Vongthongsri A. Medium-term outcomes of boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation in Bangkok. Thailand. Cornea. 2014;33(12):1312–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Srikumaran D, Munoz B, Aldave AJ, Aquavella JV, Hannush SB, Schultze R, et al. Long-term outcomes of boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation: a retrospective multicenter cohort. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2159–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. de Oliveira LA. Pedreira Magalhaes F, Hirai FE, de Sousa LB. Experience with Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 in the developing world. Can J Ophthalmol. 2014;49(4):351–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Phillips DL, Hager JL, Goins KM, Kitzmann AS, Greiner MA, Cohen AW, et al. Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis for chemical and thermal injury. Cornea. 2014;33(9):905–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Rishi P, Rishi E, Koundanya VV, Mathur G, Iyer G, Srinivasan B. Vitreoretinal Complications in Eyes with Boston Keratoprosthesis Type i. Retina. 2015 Sep 21.

  148. Shihadeh WA, Mohidat HM. Outcomes of the Boston keratoprosthesis in jordan. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2012;19(1):97–100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Sejpal K, Yu F, Aldave AJ. The Boston keratoprosthesis in the management of corneal limbal stem cell deficiency. Cornea. 2011;30(11):1187–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Dunlap K, Chak G, Aquavella JV, Myrowitz E, Utine CA, Akpek E. Short-term visual outcomes of Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(4):687–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Sayegh RR, Ang LP, Foster CS, Dohlman CH. The Boston keratoprosthesis in Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(3):438–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shiley Eye Institute, University of California, San Diego, 9415 Campus Point Dr, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA

    Duriye D. Sevgi, Hideki Fukuoka & Natalie A. Afshari

Authors
  1. Duriye D. Sevgi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hideki Fukuoka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Natalie A. Afshari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie A. Afshari.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Duriye Damla Sevgi, Hideki Fukuoka, and Natalie Afshari declare no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical collection on Ocular Prosthesis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sevgi, D.D., Fukuoka, H. & Afshari, N.A. 20 Years of Advances in Keratoprosthesis. Curr Ophthalmol Rep 4, 226–243 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40135-016-0107-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40135-016-0107-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation