Boston type I keratoprosthesis versus penetrating keratoplasty following a single failed corneal graft
Background/objectives To compare long-term outcomes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro) with penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in patients with a failed first PKP. Subjects/Methods In this retrospective comparative case series, 48 eyes of 48 patients who underwent a second corneal replacement...
Saved in:
Published in | Eye (London) Vol. 37; no. 3; pp. 486 - 491 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
London
Nature Publishing Group UK
01.02.2023
Nature Publishing Group |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 0950-222X 1476-5454 1476-5454 |
DOI | 10.1038/s41433-022-01969-9 |
Cover
Abstract | Background/objectives
To compare long-term outcomes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro) with penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in patients with a failed first PKP.
Subjects/Methods
In this retrospective comparative case series, 48 eyes of 48 patients who underwent a second corneal replacement procedure after a first failed PKP at the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal from 2008 to 2020 were included. Minimum follow-up duration was 5 years, and patients with keratoconus were excluded since such subjects are not candidates for KPro. Main outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), postoperative complications, graft survival and subsequent interventions.
Results
Mean follow-up was 6.4 years for PKP and 9.6 years for KPro (
p
< 0.001). Preoperative BCVA was better in PKP patients (means 1.67 vs 2.13,
p
= 0.041). Visual outcomes were similar between groups. KPro patients developed 0.263 complication per patient-year (ppy) compared to 0.245 ppy or PKP. The most common complications for PKP were corneal complications (0.088 ppy) and glaucoma worsening (0.041 ppy). In KPro, glaucoma worsening (0.046 ppy), vitreoretinal complications (0.042 ppy) and retroprosthetic membrane (0.042 ppy) were the most frequent. Graft failure (69.6 vs 20.0%,
p
< 0.001) and reoperation rates (56.5 vs 12.0%,
p
= 0.001) were significantly higher for PKP. Failure mainly resulted from decompensation or rejection in PKP, while all five failures in KPro were caused by melt and/or extrusion.
Conclusions
Both interventions showed similar visual outcomes. Complication profiles were different, with more posterior segment complications in the KPro group, and more corneal complications in the PKP group, often necessitating regraft. |
---|---|
AbstractList | To compare long-term outcomes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro) with penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in patients with a failed first PKP.BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVESTo compare long-term outcomes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro) with penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in patients with a failed first PKP.In this retrospective comparative case series, 48 eyes of 48 patients who underwent a second corneal replacement procedure after a first failed PKP at the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal from 2008 to 2020 were included. Minimum follow-up duration was 5 years, and patients with keratoconus were excluded since such subjects are not candidates for KPro. Main outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), postoperative complications, graft survival and subsequent interventions.SUBJECTS/METHODSIn this retrospective comparative case series, 48 eyes of 48 patients who underwent a second corneal replacement procedure after a first failed PKP at the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal from 2008 to 2020 were included. Minimum follow-up duration was 5 years, and patients with keratoconus were excluded since such subjects are not candidates for KPro. Main outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), postoperative complications, graft survival and subsequent interventions.Mean follow-up was 6.4 years for PKP and 9.6 years for KPro (p < 0.001). Preoperative BCVA was better in PKP patients (means 1.67 vs 2.13, p = 0.041). Visual outcomes were similar between groups. KPro patients developed 0.263 complication per patient-year (ppy) compared to 0.245 ppy or PKP. The most common complications for PKP were corneal complications (0.088 ppy) and glaucoma worsening (0.041 ppy). In KPro, glaucoma worsening (0.046 ppy), vitreoretinal complications (0.042 ppy) and retroprosthetic membrane (0.042 ppy) were the most frequent. Graft failure (69.6 vs 20.0%, p < 0.001) and reoperation rates (56.5 vs 12.0%, p = 0.001) were significantly higher for PKP. Failure mainly resulted from decompensation or rejection in PKP, while all five failures in KPro were caused by melt and/or extrusion.RESULTSMean follow-up was 6.4 years for PKP and 9.6 years for KPro (p < 0.001). Preoperative BCVA was better in PKP patients (means 1.67 vs 2.13, p = 0.041). Visual outcomes were similar between groups. KPro patients developed 0.263 complication per patient-year (ppy) compared to 0.245 ppy or PKP. The most common complications for PKP were corneal complications (0.088 ppy) and glaucoma worsening (0.041 ppy). In KPro, glaucoma worsening (0.046 ppy), vitreoretinal complications (0.042 ppy) and retroprosthetic membrane (0.042 ppy) were the most frequent. Graft failure (69.6 vs 20.0%, p < 0.001) and reoperation rates (56.5 vs 12.0%, p = 0.001) were significantly higher for PKP. Failure mainly resulted from decompensation or rejection in PKP, while all five failures in KPro were caused by melt and/or extrusion.Both interventions showed similar visual outcomes. Complication profiles were different, with more posterior segment complications in the KPro group, and more corneal complications in the PKP group, often necessitating regraft.CONCLUSIONSBoth interventions showed similar visual outcomes. Complication profiles were different, with more posterior segment complications in the KPro group, and more corneal complications in the PKP group, often necessitating regraft. To compare long-term outcomes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro) with penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in patients with a failed first PKP. In this retrospective comparative case series, 48 eyes of 48 patients who underwent a second corneal replacement procedure after a first failed PKP at the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal from 2008 to 2020 were included. Minimum follow-up duration was 5 years, and patients with keratoconus were excluded since such subjects are not candidates for KPro. Main outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), postoperative complications, graft survival and subsequent interventions. Mean follow-up was 6.4 years for PKP and 9.6 years for KPro (p < 0.001). Preoperative BCVA was better in PKP patients (means 1.67 vs 2.13, p = 0.041). Visual outcomes were similar between groups. KPro patients developed 0.263 complication per patient-year (ppy) compared to 0.245 ppy or PKP. The most common complications for PKP were corneal complications (0.088 ppy) and glaucoma worsening (0.041 ppy). In KPro, glaucoma worsening (0.046 ppy), vitreoretinal complications (0.042 ppy) and retroprosthetic membrane (0.042 ppy) were the most frequent. Graft failure (69.6 vs 20.0%, p < 0.001) and reoperation rates (56.5 vs 12.0%, p = 0.001) were significantly higher for PKP. Failure mainly resulted from decompensation or rejection in PKP, while all five failures in KPro were caused by melt and/or extrusion. Both interventions showed similar visual outcomes. Complication profiles were different, with more posterior segment complications in the KPro group, and more corneal complications in the PKP group, often necessitating regraft. Background/objectives To compare long-term outcomes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro) with penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in patients with a failed first PKP. Subjects/Methods In this retrospective comparative case series, 48 eyes of 48 patients who underwent a second corneal replacement procedure after a first failed PKP at the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal from 2008 to 2020 were included. Minimum follow-up duration was 5 years, and patients with keratoconus were excluded since such subjects are not candidates for KPro. Main outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), postoperative complications, graft survival and subsequent interventions. Results Mean follow-up was 6.4 years for PKP and 9.6 years for KPro ( p < 0.001). Preoperative BCVA was better in PKP patients (means 1.67 vs 2.13, p = 0.041). Visual outcomes were similar between groups. KPro patients developed 0.263 complication per patient-year (ppy) compared to 0.245 ppy or PKP. The most common complications for PKP were corneal complications (0.088 ppy) and glaucoma worsening (0.041 ppy). In KPro, glaucoma worsening (0.046 ppy), vitreoretinal complications (0.042 ppy) and retroprosthetic membrane (0.042 ppy) were the most frequent. Graft failure (69.6 vs 20.0%, p < 0.001) and reoperation rates (56.5 vs 12.0%, p = 0.001) were significantly higher for PKP. Failure mainly resulted from decompensation or rejection in PKP, while all five failures in KPro were caused by melt and/or extrusion. Conclusions Both interventions showed similar visual outcomes. Complication profiles were different, with more posterior segment complications in the KPro group, and more corneal complications in the PKP group, often necessitating regraft. Background/objectivesTo compare long-term outcomes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro) with penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in patients with a failed first PKP.Subjects/MethodsIn this retrospective comparative case series, 48 eyes of 48 patients who underwent a second corneal replacement procedure after a first failed PKP at the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal from 2008 to 2020 were included. Minimum follow-up duration was 5 years, and patients with keratoconus were excluded since such subjects are not candidates for KPro. Main outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), postoperative complications, graft survival and subsequent interventions.ResultsMean follow-up was 6.4 years for PKP and 9.6 years for KPro (p < 0.001). Preoperative BCVA was better in PKP patients (means 1.67 vs 2.13, p = 0.041). Visual outcomes were similar between groups. KPro patients developed 0.263 complication per patient-year (ppy) compared to 0.245 ppy or PKP. The most common complications for PKP were corneal complications (0.088 ppy) and glaucoma worsening (0.041 ppy). In KPro, glaucoma worsening (0.046 ppy), vitreoretinal complications (0.042 ppy) and retroprosthetic membrane (0.042 ppy) were the most frequent. Graft failure (69.6 vs 20.0%, p < 0.001) and reoperation rates (56.5 vs 12.0%, p = 0.001) were significantly higher for PKP. Failure mainly resulted from decompensation or rejection in PKP, while all five failures in KPro were caused by melt and/or extrusion.ConclusionsBoth interventions showed similar visual outcomes. Complication profiles were different, with more posterior segment complications in the KPro group, and more corneal complications in the PKP group, often necessitating regraft. |
Author | El-Khoury, Jonathan Harissi-Dagher, Mona Khair, Diana Daoud, Roy Racine, Louis Thompson, Paul |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Jonathan orcidid: 0000-0003-3186-2351 surname: El-Khoury fullname: El-Khoury, Jonathan organization: Faculty of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke – sequence: 2 givenname: Diana surname: Khair fullname: Khair, Diana organization: Department of Ophthalmology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal – sequence: 3 givenname: Roy surname: Daoud fullname: Daoud, Roy organization: Department of Ophthalmology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal – sequence: 4 givenname: Paul surname: Thompson fullname: Thompson, Paul organization: Department of Ophthalmology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal – sequence: 5 givenname: Louis surname: Racine fullname: Racine, Louis organization: Department of Ophthalmology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal – sequence: 6 givenname: Mona surname: Harissi-Dagher fullname: Harissi-Dagher, Mona email: monadagher@hotmail.com organization: Department of Ophthalmology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35169272$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNp9kctuFDEQRS0URCaBH2CBLLFh01B-jzdIEPGIFIkFLNhZ7p7ypIPHbuzuoPl7HCYJjwWrkqpOXd_yPSFHKSck5CmDlwzE-lWVTArRAecdMKttZx-QFZNGd0oqeURWYBV0nPOvx-Sk1iuANjTwiBwLxbTlhq9IeJvrnBOd9xPSc_oNi5_zVFrzEutY6TWWulQ6YcK5jca0vWOir_Oehhxj_nHT9rS2EpEGP0bc0CGXhD7SbfFhfkweBh8rPrmtp-Tz-3dfzj52F58-nJ-9uegGydXcvGoGwYJRSgrVaz8oAUYrOxgpJQ9mHXRvLB-GjWRaoIZ-LQxTm9BL5OKUvD6oTku_w82AqXmObirjzpe9y350f0_SeOm2-dpZC0qBaAIvbgVK_r5gnd1urAPG6BPmpTquuRVrpkA19Pk_6FVeSmrHOW6MBFBG60Y9-9PRvZW7ABrAD8DQ_rwWDPcIA3eTsjuk7FrK7lfKzrYlcViqDU5bLL_f_s_WT7kKq0E |
Cites_doi | 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181903b0a 10.1136/bjo.81.9.726 10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00544-3 10.1167/iovs.05-0981 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001405 10.1097/01.iio.0000176365.71016.28 10.1038/eye.1990.6 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006164 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.12.032 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.015 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-317483 10.1016/j.jtos.2020.07.012 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.04.036 10.1007/978-3-642-55179-6_11 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.10.023 10.1007/978-3-642-55179-6_7 10.1038/eye.2008.305 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.028 10.1586/17469899.1.1.41 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002098 10.1177/112067210901900306 10.1016/j.ajo.2021.06.002 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.025 10.1097/TP.0000000000001281 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists 2022 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists 2022. |
Copyright_xml | – notice: The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists 2022 – notice: 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. – notice: The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists 2022. |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7TK 7X7 7XB 88E 8AO 8FE 8FH 8FI 8FJ 8FK ABUWG AFKRA AZQEC BBNVY BENPR BHPHI CCPQU DWQXO FYUFA GHDGH GNUQQ HCIFZ K9. LK8 M0S M1P M7P PHGZM PHGZT PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQGLB PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS 7X8 5PM |
DOI | 10.1038/s41433-022-01969-9 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed ProQuest Central (Corporate) Neurosciences Abstracts Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Medical Database (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Pharma Collection ProQuest SciTech Collection ProQuest Natural Science Collection Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest Central UK/Ireland ProQuest Central Essentials Biological Science Database ProQuest Central Natural Science Collection ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Central Proquest Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Central Student SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Biological Sciences ProQuest Health & Medical Collection PML(ProQuest Medical Library) Biological Science Database ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) ProQuest Central Student ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest Natural Science Collection ProQuest Pharma Collection ProQuest Central China ProQuest Central ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection Health Research Premium Collection Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) Natural Science Collection ProQuest Central Korea Health & Medical Research Collection Biological Science Collection ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni) ProQuest Biological Science Collection ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Hospital Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) Biological Science Database ProQuest SciTech Collection Neurosciences Abstracts ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest Medical Library ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE ProQuest Central Student |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: BENPR name: ProQuest Central url: https://www.proquest.com/central sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine |
EISSN | 1476-5454 |
EndPage | 491 |
ExternalDocumentID | PMC9905503 35169272 10_1038_s41433_022_01969_9 |
Genre | Journal Article |
GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: Fonds de Recherche en Ophtalmologie de l'Université de Montréal (FROUM) – fundername: ; |
GroupedDBID | --- -Q- .GJ 0R~ 29G 2WC 36B 39C 3O- 4.4 406 53G 5RE 6PF 70F 7X7 88E 8AO 8FI 8FJ 8R4 8R5 AACDK AANZL AASML AATNV AAWTL AAYZH ABAKF ABAWZ ABBRH ABCQX ABDBE ABFSG ABJNI ABLJU ABRTQ ABUWG ABZZP ACAOD ACGFS ACKTT ACPRK ACRQY ACSTC ACZOJ ADBBV AEFQL AEJRE AEMSY AENEX AEVLU AEXYK AEZWR AFBBN AFDZB AFFNX AFHIU AFKRA AFSHS AGAYW AGHAI AGQEE AHMBA AHSBF AHWEU AIGIU AILAN AIXLP AJRNO ALFFA ALIPV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMYLF AOIJS ATHPR AXYYD AYFIA BAWUL BBNVY BENPR BHPHI BKKNO BPHCQ BVXVI CAG CCPQU COF CS3 DIK DNIVK DPUIP E3Z EBLON EBS EBX EE. EIOEI EJD EMB EMOBN F5P FDQFY FERAY FIGPU FIZPM FSGXE FYUFA GX1 HCIFZ HMCUK HYE HZ~ IWAJR JSO JZLTJ KQ8 L7B M1P M7P NQJWS O9- OK1 P2P PHGZM PHGZT PJZUB PPXIY PQGLB PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO Q2X RNS RNT RNTTT ROL RPM SNX SNYQT SOHCF SOJ SRMVM SV3 SWTZT TAOOD TBHMF TDRGL TR2 UKHRP W2D ZGI ZXP AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7TK 7XB 8FE 8FH 8FK AZQEC DWQXO GNUQQ K9. LK8 PKEHL PQEST PQUKI PRINS PUEGO 7X8 5PM |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c425t-22610f90755435b6ac5307659c74442f78f6b792ccd4163e60b83715dfb4e23 |
IEDL.DBID | 7X7 |
ISSN | 0950-222X 1476-5454 |
IngestDate | Thu Aug 21 18:35:34 EDT 2025 Fri Sep 05 04:09:26 EDT 2025 Sat Aug 23 14:35:22 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 05:47:47 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 03:00:38 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 06:08:34 EDT 2025 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 3 |
Language | English |
License | 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c425t-22610f90755435b6ac5307659c74442f78f6b792ccd4163e60b83715dfb4e23 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
ORCID | 0000-0003-3186-2351 |
OpenAccessLink | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-022-01969-9.pdf |
PMID | 35169272 |
PQID | 2774005766 |
PQPubID | 33647 |
PageCount | 6 |
ParticipantIDs | pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9905503 proquest_miscellaneous_2629381505 proquest_journals_2774005766 pubmed_primary_35169272 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41433_022_01969_9 springer_journals_10_1038_s41433_022_01969_9 |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2023-02-01 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2023-02-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 02 year: 2023 text: 2023-02-01 day: 01 |
PublicationDecade | 2020 |
PublicationPlace | London |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: London – name: England |
PublicationSubtitle | The Scientific Journal of The Royal College of Ophthalmologists |
PublicationTitle | Eye (London) |
PublicationTitleAbbrev | Eye |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Eye (Lond) |
PublicationYear | 2023 |
Publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK Nature Publishing Group |
Publisher_xml | – name: Nature Publishing Group UK – name: Nature Publishing Group |
References | Güell JL, Arrondo E, Cortina MS, Echevarría J, Gómez-Resa MV, Gris O et al. Boston KPro type I: complications. In: Cortina MS, de la Cruz J (eds). Keratoprostheses and artificial corneas: fundamentals and surgical applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg; 2015. pp 85–105. MaJJGraneyJMDohlmanCHRepeat penetrating keratoplasty versus the Boston keratoprosthesis in graft failureInt Ophthalmol Clin200545495910.1097/01.iio.0000176365.71016.28 RahmanICarleyFHillarbyCBrahmaATulloABPenetrating keratoplasty: indications, outcomes, and complicationsEye2009231288941:STN:280:DC%2BD1MvgslGhsw%3D%3D10.1038/eye.2008.305 ChenMNgSMAkpekEKAhmadSArtificial corneas versus donor corneas for repeat corneal transplantsCochrane Database Syst Rev20205Cd009561 LeeWBShteinRMKaufmanSCDengSXRosenblattMIBoston keratoprosthesis: outcomes and complications: a report by the American academy of ophthalmologyOphthalmology201512215041110.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.025 MatthaeiMSandhaegerHHermelMAdlerWJunASCursiefenCChanging indications in penetrating keratoplasty: a systematic review of 34 years of global reportingTransplantation201710113879910.1097/TP.0000000000001281 AkpekEKHarissi-DagherMPetrarcaRButrusSIPinedaR2ndAquavellaJVOutcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis in aniridia: a retrospective multicenter studyAm J Ophthalmol20071442273110.1016/j.ajo.2007.04.036 AravenaCYuFAldaveAJLong-term visual outcomes, complications, and retention of the Boston type I keratoprosthesisCornea20183731010.1097/ICO.0000000000001405 GreinerMALiJYMannisMJLonger-term vision outcomes and complications with the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis at the University of California, DavisOphthalmology201111815435010.1016/j.ophtha.2010.12.032 RudniskyCJBelinMWGuoRCiolinoJBVisual acuity outcomes of the Boston keratoprosthesis type 1: multicenter study resultsAm J Ophthalmol2016162899810.1016/j.ajo.2015.10.023e81 AkpekEKCassardSDDunlapKHahnSRamuluPYDonor corneal transplantation vs Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis in patients with previous graft failures: a retrospective single center study (an American Ophthalmological Society Thesis)Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc2015113T3 Schulze-BonselKFeltgenNBurauHHansenLBachMVisual acuities “hand motion” and “counting fingers” can be quantified with the freiburg visual acuity testInvest Ophthalmol Vis Sci20064712364010.1167/iovs.05-0981 KirknessCMEzraERiceNSSteeleADThe success and survival of repeat corneal graftsEye19904586410.1038/eye.1990.6 ZerbeBLBelinMWCiolinoJBResults from the multicenter Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis studyOphthalmology2006113177910.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.015e1771-1777 PriddyJBardanASTawfikHSLiuCSystematic review and meta-analysis of the medium- and long-term outcomes of the boston type 1 keratoprosthesisCornea20193814657310.1097/ICO.0000000000002098 Robert M-C, Harissi-Dagher M. Indications and contraindications of Boston KPRO types I and II. In: Cortina MS, de la Cruz J (eds). Keratoprostheses and artificial corneas: fundamentals and surgical applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg; 2015. pp 51–65. WilliamsKALoweMBartlettCKellyTLCosterDJRisk factors for human corneal graft failure within the Australian corneal graft registryTransplantation2008861720410.1097/TP.0b013e3181903b0a Dohlman CH, Harissi-Dagher M, Graney J. The Boston keratoprosthesis: a new threadless design. Digit J Ophthalmol. 2007;13:1–6. El-Khoury J, Mustafa M, Daoud R, Harissi-Dagher M. Time to achieve best postoperative visual acuity following Boston keratoprosthesis surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;104:1601–7. KhairDSalimiAHarissi-DagherMVitreoretinal complications in Boston keratoprosthesis type 1Am J Ophthalmol2021231101810.1016/j.ajo.2021.06.002 KanuLNNiparugsMNonpassoponMKarasFIde la CruzJMCortinaMSPredictive factors of Boston type i keratoprosthesis outcomes: a long-term analysisOcul Surf202018613910.1016/j.jtos.2020.07.012 AhmadSMathewsPMLindsleyKAlkharashiMHwangFSNgSMBoston type 1 keratoprosthesis versus repeat donor keratoplasty for corneal graft failure: a systematic review and meta-analysisOphthalmology20161231657710.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.028 ChenYWangCLiuQWangZGaoMComparison of the clinical efficacy of Boston keratoprosthesis type I and repetitive penetrating keratoplasty for refractory keratopathyJ Craniofac Surg202031e194e19910.1097/SCS.0000000000006164 DandonaLNaduvilathTJJanarthananMRaguKRaoGNSurvival analysis and visual outcome in a large series of corneal transplants in IndiaBr J Ophthalmol199781726311:STN:280:DyaK1c%2FosV2jsw%3D%3D10.1136/bjo.81.9.726 BersudskyVBlum-HareuveniTRehanyURumeltSThe profile of repeated corneal transplantationOphthalmology200110846191:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7lvFyhsw%3D%3D10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00544-3 SzigiatoAABostanCNaymanTHarissi-DagherMLong-term visual outcomes of the Boston type I keratoprosthesis in CanadaBr J Ophthalmol.202010416017 Yalniz-AkkayaZBurcu NurozlerAYildizEOnatMBudakKDumanSRepeat penetrating keratoplasty: indications and prognosis, 1995-2005Eur J Ophthalmol200919362810.1177/112067210901900306 1969_CR3 1969_CR6 EK Akpek (1969_CR10) 2015; 113 CJ Rudnisky (1969_CR14) 2016; 162 D Khair (1969_CR2) 2021; 231 WB Lee (1969_CR23) 2015; 122 M Chen (1969_CR9) 2020; 5 1969_CR11 S Ahmad (1969_CR12) 2016; 123 Z Yalniz-Akkaya (1969_CR26) 2009; 19 M Matthaei (1969_CR18) 2017; 101 JJ Ma (1969_CR5) 2005; 45 I Rahman (1969_CR27) 2009; 23 L Dandona (1969_CR25) 1997; 81 V Bersudsky (1969_CR24) 2001; 108 1969_CR1 K Schulze-Bonsel (1969_CR8) 2006; 47 Y Chen (1969_CR13) 2020; 31 C Aravena (1969_CR16) 2018; 37 MA Greiner (1969_CR15) 2011; 118 KA Williams (1969_CR17) 2008; 86 CM Kirkness (1969_CR4) 1990; 4 LN Kanu (1969_CR19) 2020; 18 AA Szigiato (1969_CR7) 2020; 104 BL Zerbe (1969_CR21) 2006; 113 EK Akpek (1969_CR20) 2007; 144 J Priddy (1969_CR22) 2019; 38 |
References_xml | – reference: AkpekEKCassardSDDunlapKHahnSRamuluPYDonor corneal transplantation vs Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis in patients with previous graft failures: a retrospective single center study (an American Ophthalmological Society Thesis)Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc2015113T3 – reference: KirknessCMEzraERiceNSSteeleADThe success and survival of repeat corneal graftsEye19904586410.1038/eye.1990.6 – reference: AhmadSMathewsPMLindsleyKAlkharashiMHwangFSNgSMBoston type 1 keratoprosthesis versus repeat donor keratoplasty for corneal graft failure: a systematic review and meta-analysisOphthalmology20161231657710.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.028 – reference: AkpekEKHarissi-DagherMPetrarcaRButrusSIPinedaR2ndAquavellaJVOutcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis in aniridia: a retrospective multicenter studyAm J Ophthalmol20071442273110.1016/j.ajo.2007.04.036 – reference: Schulze-BonselKFeltgenNBurauHHansenLBachMVisual acuities “hand motion” and “counting fingers” can be quantified with the freiburg visual acuity testInvest Ophthalmol Vis Sci20064712364010.1167/iovs.05-0981 – reference: KanuLNNiparugsMNonpassoponMKarasFIde la CruzJMCortinaMSPredictive factors of Boston type i keratoprosthesis outcomes: a long-term analysisOcul Surf202018613910.1016/j.jtos.2020.07.012 – reference: KhairDSalimiAHarissi-DagherMVitreoretinal complications in Boston keratoprosthesis type 1Am J Ophthalmol2021231101810.1016/j.ajo.2021.06.002 – reference: ChenMNgSMAkpekEKAhmadSArtificial corneas versus donor corneas for repeat corneal transplantsCochrane Database Syst Rev20205Cd009561 – reference: PriddyJBardanASTawfikHSLiuCSystematic review and meta-analysis of the medium- and long-term outcomes of the boston type 1 keratoprosthesisCornea20193814657310.1097/ICO.0000000000002098 – reference: BersudskyVBlum-HareuveniTRehanyURumeltSThe profile of repeated corneal transplantationOphthalmology200110846191:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7lvFyhsw%3D%3D10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00544-3 – reference: MaJJGraneyJMDohlmanCHRepeat penetrating keratoplasty versus the Boston keratoprosthesis in graft failureInt Ophthalmol Clin200545495910.1097/01.iio.0000176365.71016.28 – reference: AravenaCYuFAldaveAJLong-term visual outcomes, complications, and retention of the Boston type I keratoprosthesisCornea20183731010.1097/ICO.0000000000001405 – reference: ChenYWangCLiuQWangZGaoMComparison of the clinical efficacy of Boston keratoprosthesis type I and repetitive penetrating keratoplasty for refractory keratopathyJ Craniofac Surg202031e194e19910.1097/SCS.0000000000006164 – reference: LeeWBShteinRMKaufmanSCDengSXRosenblattMIBoston keratoprosthesis: outcomes and complications: a report by the American academy of ophthalmologyOphthalmology201512215041110.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.025 – reference: Yalniz-AkkayaZBurcu NurozlerAYildizEOnatMBudakKDumanSRepeat penetrating keratoplasty: indications and prognosis, 1995-2005Eur J Ophthalmol200919362810.1177/112067210901900306 – reference: El-Khoury J, Mustafa M, Daoud R, Harissi-Dagher M. Time to achieve best postoperative visual acuity following Boston keratoprosthesis surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;104:1601–7. – reference: SzigiatoAABostanCNaymanTHarissi-DagherMLong-term visual outcomes of the Boston type I keratoprosthesis in CanadaBr J Ophthalmol.202010416017 – reference: WilliamsKALoweMBartlettCKellyTLCosterDJRisk factors for human corneal graft failure within the Australian corneal graft registryTransplantation2008861720410.1097/TP.0b013e3181903b0a – reference: RahmanICarleyFHillarbyCBrahmaATulloABPenetrating keratoplasty: indications, outcomes, and complicationsEye2009231288941:STN:280:DC%2BD1MvgslGhsw%3D%3D10.1038/eye.2008.305 – reference: ZerbeBLBelinMWCiolinoJBResults from the multicenter Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis studyOphthalmology2006113177910.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.015e1771-1777 – reference: Güell JL, Arrondo E, Cortina MS, Echevarría J, Gómez-Resa MV, Gris O et al. Boston KPro type I: complications. In: Cortina MS, de la Cruz J (eds). Keratoprostheses and artificial corneas: fundamentals and surgical applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg; 2015. pp 85–105. – reference: Dohlman CH, Harissi-Dagher M, Graney J. The Boston keratoprosthesis: a new threadless design. Digit J Ophthalmol. 2007;13:1–6. – reference: Robert M-C, Harissi-Dagher M. Indications and contraindications of Boston KPRO types I and II. In: Cortina MS, de la Cruz J (eds). Keratoprostheses and artificial corneas: fundamentals and surgical applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg; 2015. pp 51–65. – reference: MatthaeiMSandhaegerHHermelMAdlerWJunASCursiefenCChanging indications in penetrating keratoplasty: a systematic review of 34 years of global reportingTransplantation201710113879910.1097/TP.0000000000001281 – reference: GreinerMALiJYMannisMJLonger-term vision outcomes and complications with the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis at the University of California, DavisOphthalmology201111815435010.1016/j.ophtha.2010.12.032 – reference: DandonaLNaduvilathTJJanarthananMRaguKRaoGNSurvival analysis and visual outcome in a large series of corneal transplants in IndiaBr J Ophthalmol199781726311:STN:280:DyaK1c%2FosV2jsw%3D%3D10.1136/bjo.81.9.726 – reference: RudniskyCJBelinMWGuoRCiolinoJBVisual acuity outcomes of the Boston keratoprosthesis type 1: multicenter study resultsAm J Ophthalmol2016162899810.1016/j.ajo.2015.10.023e81 – volume: 86 start-page: 1720 year: 2008 ident: 1969_CR17 publication-title: Transplantation doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181903b0a – volume: 81 start-page: 726 year: 1997 ident: 1969_CR25 publication-title: Br J Ophthalmol doi: 10.1136/bjo.81.9.726 – volume: 5 start-page: Cd009561 year: 2020 ident: 1969_CR9 publication-title: Cochrane Database Syst Rev – volume: 108 start-page: 461 year: 2001 ident: 1969_CR24 publication-title: Ophthalmology doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00544-3 – volume: 47 start-page: 1236 year: 2006 ident: 1969_CR8 publication-title: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-0981 – volume: 37 start-page: 3 year: 2018 ident: 1969_CR16 publication-title: Cornea doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001405 – volume: 45 start-page: 49 year: 2005 ident: 1969_CR5 publication-title: Int Ophthalmol Clin doi: 10.1097/01.iio.0000176365.71016.28 – volume: 4 start-page: 58 year: 1990 ident: 1969_CR4 publication-title: Eye doi: 10.1038/eye.1990.6 – volume: 31 start-page: e194 year: 2020 ident: 1969_CR13 publication-title: J Craniofac Surg doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006164 – volume: 118 start-page: 1543 year: 2011 ident: 1969_CR15 publication-title: Ophthalmology doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.12.032 – volume: 113 start-page: 1779 year: 2006 ident: 1969_CR21 publication-title: Ophthalmology doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.015 – ident: 1969_CR11 doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-317483 – volume: 18 start-page: 613 year: 2020 ident: 1969_CR19 publication-title: Ocul Surf doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2020.07.012 – volume: 113 start-page: T3 year: 2015 ident: 1969_CR10 publication-title: Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc – volume: 104 start-page: 1601 year: 2020 ident: 1969_CR7 publication-title: Br J Ophthalmol. – volume: 144 start-page: 227 year: 2007 ident: 1969_CR20 publication-title: Am J Ophthalmol doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.04.036 – ident: 1969_CR3 doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-55179-6_11 – volume: 162 start-page: 89 year: 2016 ident: 1969_CR14 publication-title: Am J Ophthalmol doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.10.023 – ident: 1969_CR1 doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-55179-6_7 – volume: 23 start-page: 1288 year: 2009 ident: 1969_CR27 publication-title: Eye doi: 10.1038/eye.2008.305 – volume: 123 start-page: 165 year: 2016 ident: 1969_CR12 publication-title: Ophthalmology doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.028 – ident: 1969_CR6 doi: 10.1586/17469899.1.1.41 – volume: 38 start-page: 1465 year: 2019 ident: 1969_CR22 publication-title: Cornea doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002098 – volume: 19 start-page: 362 year: 2009 ident: 1969_CR26 publication-title: Eur J Ophthalmol doi: 10.1177/112067210901900306 – volume: 231 start-page: 101 year: 2021 ident: 1969_CR2 publication-title: Am J Ophthalmol doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2021.06.002 – volume: 122 start-page: 1504 year: 2015 ident: 1969_CR23 publication-title: Ophthalmology doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.025 – volume: 101 start-page: 1387 year: 2017 ident: 1969_CR18 publication-title: Transplantation doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001281 |
SSID | ssj0014770 |
Score | 2.3604603 |
Snippet | Background/objectives
To compare long-term outcomes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro) with penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in patients with a failed... To compare long-term outcomes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro) with penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in patients with a failed first PKP. In this... Background/objectivesTo compare long-term outcomes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro) with penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in patients with a failed... To compare long-term outcomes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro) with penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in patients with a failed first... |
SourceID | pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref springer |
SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Publisher |
StartPage | 486 |
SubjectTerms | 692/308/409 692/700/565/545/576 Acuity Artificial Organs - adverse effects Complications Cornea Cornea - surgery Corneal Diseases - surgery Corneal transplantation Eye surgery Glaucoma Glaucoma - surgery Graft rejection Graft-versus-host reaction Grafts Humans Keratoconus Keratoconus - surgery Keratoplasty, Penetrating - methods Laboratory Medicine Medicine Medicine & Public Health Ophthalmology Pharmaceutical Sciences/Technology Postoperative Postoperative Complications - etiology Prostheses and Implants Prosthesis Implantation Retrospective Studies Surgery Surgical Oncology Visual Acuity |
Title | Boston type I keratoprosthesis versus penetrating keratoplasty following a single failed corneal graft |
URI | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s41433-022-01969-9 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35169272 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2774005766 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2629381505 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC9905503 |
Volume | 37 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1ba90wDBZbC2Mvo7tn64oHe9tMc3Hs-Km0o6UbtIxd4LwFO7bbspGcNTmM_ftJTnLKWdleY0MSyZI-XSwBvNGo8rOqMtylleeitJpbHQruVO6FS30lGopDnp3L02_i46JcTAG3fiqrnHViVNSuayhGvp8jTqGbk1IeLH9ymhpF2dVphMZd2I6ty_A8q8Xa4cqEisPiEEWkHO3gYro0kxbVfi8QKFAGkwoTtNRcbxqmW2jzdtHkX5nTaJBOduDBhCTZ4cj6h3DHt4_g3tmUK38MYeyZwSjIyj6w79Q9uVvSJY9L31_1jOoxVj1borKLrXPbi3kPAurhNwt4Qrpf9NgwCij88CwY1CGOocPaIr5kF9cmDE_gy8nx1_enfJqqwBuUzwEJgYgpoE-MQKIorTRNiXIuS90oIUQeVBWkVTpvGkdgzcvUohOblS5Y4fPiKWy1XeufAwtZ1rjgjHEefcosWG-lCFKlIssKU-oE3s4ErZdj64w6pryLqh7JXyP560j-GnfvzjSvJzHq6xumJ_B6vYwCQFkN0_puhXskIpYKcW2ZwLORRevXFZQFzFWegNpg3noDNdfeXGmvLmOTbbTS6LwVCbyb2XzzWf_-ixf__4uXcJ_G1Y9V37uwNVyv_CsENYPdiyd3D7aPjs8_ff4DBgD2Zg |
linkProvider | ProQuest |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1Lb9QwEB5VWwm4IN6kFDASnMBq4jhOfECIR6td2l0hKNKeiJLYbitQsm2yqvqf-JHM5LHVUsGt19iS45nx-BvPC-ClRpUfJEnGjZ9YLqNc81y7kJtYWGl8m8iC3iGnMzX-Lj_Po_kG_B5yYSisctCJraI2VUFv5DsCcQplTir1bnHKqWsUeVeHFhqdWOzbi3M02eq3k0_I31dC7O0efhzzvqsAL1A-G454I_Ad2oR4kYZRrrIiQjlXkS5iKaVwceJUHmtRFIbAilV-jkZcEBmXS0tlDlDhb0rKZx3B5ofd2ZevK6-FjNvmdIhafFxGzPskHT9MdmqJwIQ8phQIoZXmev0ivIJurwZp_uWpbS_AvTtwu0eu7H0nandhw5b34Ma0983fB9fV6GD0qMsm7CdVa64WlFRybOuTmlH8x7JmC1Subane8miYgwC-uWAOJbI6p88ZoweMX5a5DHWWYWggl4hn2dFZ5poH8O0a6P0QRmVV2sfAXBAUxpksMxZt2MDlNlfSqdiXQRBmkfbg9UDQdNGV6khbF3uYpB35UyR_2pI_xdnbA83T_tjW6aWQefBiNYwHjrwoWWmrJc5RiJASxNGRB486Fq2WC8nrKGLhQbzGvNUEKua9PlKeHLdFvREVoLEYevBmYPPlb_17F1v_38VzuDk-nB6kB5PZ_hO4JRCgdRHn2zBqzpb2KQKqJn_WyzGDH9d7cP4ArcYvjg |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV3db9QwDLemIU28IL4pGxAkeILq2jRNmgeEEOO0Y2xCAqR7omqaZJs2tcfa07T_jD8Pux83HRO87bWxlMaxnZ9jxwZ4pdHkx1lWhDbKXChSo0OjfRJaxZ2wkctESfeQB4dy74f4PE_nG_B7fAtDaZWjTewMta1LuiOfcMQp9HJSyokf0iK-7k7fL36F1EGKIq1jO41eRPbd5QW6b8272S7u9WvOp5--f9wLhw4DYYmy2oaIPeLIo3-Ih2qSGlmUKcq8THWphBDcq8xLozQvS0vAxcnIoEMXp9Yb4ajkARr_WypBTIWapOYrVy8WqmtTh_glwkn4fHiuEyXZpBEIUSh2SikRWupQrx-J13Du9XTNv2K23VE4vQt3BgzLPvRCdw82XHUftg6GKP0D8H21DkbXu2zGTqluc72g5yXHrjlpGGWCLBu2QDPbFe2tjkYahPLtJfMom_UFfS4YXWWcOeYLtF6WoatcIbJlR-eFbx_Ctxvg9iPYrOrKPQHm47i03haFdejNxt44I4WXKhJxnBSpDuDNyNB80RftyLtge5LlPftzZH_esT9H6p2R5_mgwE1-JW4BvFwNo-pRPKWoXL1EGolYKUNEnQbwuN-i1XQJxR-54gGotc1bEVBZ7_WR6uS4K--N-ADdxiSAt-M2X_3Wv1fx9P-reAFbqC75l9nh_jbc5ojU-tTzHdhsz5fuGSKr1jzvhJjBz5vVmT-A5DJV |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Boston+type+I+keratoprosthesis+versus+penetrating+keratoplasty+following+a+single+failed+corneal+graft&rft.jtitle=Eye+%28London%29&rft.au=El-Khoury%2C+Jonathan&rft.au=Khair%2C+Diana&rft.au=Daoud%2C+Roy&rft.au=Thompson%2C+Paul&rft.date=2023-02-01&rft.eissn=1476-5454&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=486&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038%2Fs41433-022-01969-9&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F35169272&rft.externalDocID=35169272 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0950-222X&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0950-222X&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0950-222X&client=summon |