Published date: Sep 16 2024

Journal Title: Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research

Issue title: July–Sep 2024, Volume 19, Issue 3

Pages: 297–305

DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v19i3.13307

Saeed Rahmani - medicalopto@yahoo.com - https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6330-4405

Farid Karimian - karimianf@yahoo.com - https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6758-7457

Kiana Hassanpour - kiana.hassanpour@gmail.com - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1788-7352

Mohammad-Reza Jafarinasab - dr_jafarinasab@yahoo.com

Sepehr Feizi - sepehrfeizi@yahoo.com - https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4457-8077

Sare Safi

Mohammad Ali Javadi - ma_javadi@yahoo.com - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4886-7901

Purpose: To investigate the short-term results and performance of a modified Boston keratoprosthesis device manufactured by the Ophthalmic Research Center (ORC-KPro) in patients with end-stage corneal blindness.

Methods: This prospective interventional case series was conducted on patients with corneal blindness who were candidates for KPro. The inclusion criterion comprised patients with a bestcorrected visual acuity (BCVA) of less than 20/200 in both eyes, in whom the main reason for vision loss was corneal pathology. The ORC-KPro was implanted using the method previously described for Boston KPro.

Results: This study focused on 12 eyes of 12 patients with an average age of 45.9 ± 16.8 (range, 19 to 70) years. Eleven patients were male. The KPro indication was corneal blindness due to chemical burns in nine patients (75%) and failure of multiple previous corneal grafts in three patients (25%). Anatomical success was achieved in all patients. The preoperative BCVA was light perception (LP) in 10 eyes and hand motion in 1 eye. Except for one patient who was diagnosed with grade C proliferative vitreoretinopathy during the surgery, the vision of all other patients (91.6%) improved after surgery. The retroprosthetic membrane (RPM) was formed in two eyes (18.1%) after six months. Of the 12 patients, 10 (83.3%) were under treatment with two antiglaucoma medications before surgery. The intraocular pressure of three eyes (25%) was estimated to be high by tactile palpation; however, it decreased in two eyes to the acceptable range. One patient underwent retinal surgery due to total retinal detachment, and two patients (16.7%) underwent vitrectomy due to endophthalmitis.

Conclusion: The current study showed that, in the short term, the use of ORC-KPro achieved favorable anatomical success in patients with corneal blindness. However, the functional success rate was limited by the low visual potential due to advanced glaucoma in most patients.

1. Dohlman C. The Boston Keratoprosthesis – The first 50 years: Some reminiscences. Annu Rev Vis Sci 2022;8:1– 32.

2. Priddy J, Bardan AS, Tawfik HS, Liu C. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the medium-and long-term outcomes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis. Cornea 2019;38:1465–1473.

3. Colby KA, Koo EB. Expanding indications for the Boston keratoprosthesis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2011;22:267– 73.

4. Ortiz-Morales G, Loya-Garcia D, Colorado-Zavala MF, Gomez-Elizondo DE, Soifer M, Srinivasan B, et al. The evolution of the modified osteo-odontokeratoprosthesis, its reliability, and long-term visual rehabilitation prognosis: An analytical review. Ocul Surf 2022;24:129–144.

5. Chhadva P, Cortina MS. Long-term outcomes of permanent keratoprosthesis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2019;30:243–248.

6. Dohlman CH, Harissi-Dagher M, Khan BF, Sippel K, Aquavella JV, Graney JM. Introduction to the use of the Boston keratoprosthesis. Expert Rev Ophthalmol 2006;1:41–48.

7. Aldave AJ, Kamal KM, Vo RC, Yu F. The Boston type I keratoprosthesis: Improving outcomes and expanding indications. Ophthalmology 2009;116:640–651.

8. Aldave AJ, Sangwan VS, Basu S, Basak SK, Hovakimyan A, Gevorgyan O, et al. International results with the Boston type I keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology 2012;119:1530–1538.

9. Driver TH, Aravena C, Duong HN, Christenbury JG, Yu F, Basak SK, et al. Outcomes of the Boston type I keratoprosthesis as the primary penetrating corneal procedure. Cornea 2018;37:1400–1407.

10. 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;47:61–71.

11. Sayegh RR, Ang LP, Foster CS, Dohlman CH. The Boston keratoprosthesis in Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol 2008;145:438–444.

12. Shanbhag SS, Saeed HN, Paschalis EI, Chodosh J. Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 for limbal stem cell deficiency after severe chemical corneal injury: A systematic review. Ocul Surf 2018;16:272–281.

13. Szigiato AA, Bostan C, Nayman T, Harissi-Dagher M. Long-term visual outcomes of the Boston type I keratoprosthesis in Canada. Br J Ophthalmol 2020;104:1601–1607.

14. Ahmad S, Mathews PM, Lindsley K, Alkharashi M, Hwang FS, Ng SM, et al. Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis versus repeat donor keratoplasty for corneal graft failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 2016;123:165–177.

15. Nayman T, Bostan C, Szigiato AA, Harissi-Dagher M. Long-term outcomes following primary versus secondary Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 implantation. Br J Ophthalmol 2022;106:935–940.

16. Rahmani S, Bagheri A, Karimian F, Javadi MA, Delfazayebaher S. Vision rehabilitation with a native pintucci-type keratoprosthesis. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2019;14:101–104.

17. Moshirfar M, Moody JJ, Barke MR, Martheswaran T, Thomson AC, Thomson RJ, et al. The historical development and an overview of contemporary keratoprostheses. Surv Ophthalmol 2022;67:1175– 1199.

18. Kanu LN, Niparugs M, Nonpassopon M, Karas FI, de la Cruz JM, Cortina MS. Predictive factors of Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis outcomes: A long-term analysis. Ocul Surf 2020;18:613–619.

19. Prabhasawat P, Chotikavanich S, Ngowyutagon P, Pinitpuwadol W. Long-term outcomes of Boston type I keratoprosthesis, and efficacy of amphotericin B and povidone-iodine in infection prophylaxis. Am J Ophthalmol 2021;232:40–48.

20. Sun JA, Manz SN, Shen LQ. Glaucoma management in patients with penetrating keratoplasty or keratoprosthesis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2023;34:95– 102.

21. Senthil S, Mohamed A, Shanbhag SS, Durgam SS, Bagga B, Sangwan VS, et al. Glaucoma evaluation and management in eyes with Boston type 1 and Aurolab Keratoprostheses in an Indian cohort. Cornea 2022;41:552–561.

22. 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;33:349–354.

23. Bhambra N, Harissi-Dagher M, Utine CA. Management of glaucoma with Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2022;85:540–542.

24. Khair D, Daoud R, Harissi-Dagher M. Retroprosthetic membrane formation in Boston keratoprosthesis type 1: Incidence, predisposing factors, complications, and treatment. Cornea 2022;41:751–756.

25. Park J, Phrueksaudomchai P, Cortina MS. Retroprosthetic membrane: A complication of keratoprosthesis with broad consequences. Ocul Surf 2020;18:893–900.

26. Khair D, Salimi A, Harissi-Dagher M. Vitreoretinal complications in Boston keratoprosthesis type 1. Am J Ophthalmol 2021;231:101–108.

27. Bostan C, Nayman T, Szigiato AA, Morfeq H, Harissi- Dagher M. Endophthalmitis in eyes with the Boston type I keratoprosthesis: Incidence, recurrence, risk factors, and outcomes. Cornea 2021;40:1258–1266.

28. Yaghouti F, Nouri M, Abad JC, Power WJ, Doane MG, Dohlman CH. Keratoprosthesis: preoperative prognostic categories. Cornea 2001;20:19–23.

29. Zerbe BL, Belin MW, Ciolino JB; Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study Group. Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study Group. Results from the multicenter Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis study. Ophthalmology 2006;113:1779.e1–7.

30. Salvador-Culla B, Kolovou PE, Arzeno L, Martínez S, López MA. Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 in chemical burns. Cornea 2016;35:911–916.