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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEye (London) Vol. 37; no. 3; pp. 486 - 491
Main Authors El-Khoury, Jonathan, Khair, Diana, Daoud, Roy, Thompson, Paul, Racine, Louis, Harissi-Dagher, Mona
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London Nature Publishing Group UK 01.02.2023
Nature Publishing Group
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0950-222X
1476-5454
1476-5454
DOI10.1038/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