Epithelialization of the anterior surface of the optic as a newly discovered problem of type I Boston Keratoprosthesis

Shafeeq Salman  Shafeeq; Ahmed Yahya  Jabary; Didar Sddeq  Anwar

doi:10.56056/amj.2025.357

Authors

Shafeeq Salman Shafeeq M.B.Ch.B., trainee at Kurdistan Higher council of Medical Specialties-Ophthalmology; Eye Teaching Hospital -Erbil-Kurdistan region/Iraq
Ahmed Yahya Jabary M.B.Ch.B, F.I.B.M.S; (Ophth);Ophthalmologist-Eye Teaching Hospital-Erbil-Kurdistan region/Iraq
Didar Sddeq Anwar M.B.Ch.B, F.I.B.M.S; (Ophth);Ophthalmologist- North Eye center-Erbil-Kurdistan region/Iraq

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56056/amj.2025.357

Keywords:

Corneal, Epithelialization, Keratoplasty Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis

Abstract

Background and objectives: The corneal disorders represented one of first 5 causes responsible of blindness all over the world. Failed keratoplasty commonly occurs in patients with poor prognosis. The Boston Keratoprosthesis (BKPro type-I) is the first option for managing these patients; however, many postoperative complications have been reported. Our aim was to determine the incidence of epithelialization of the anterior surface of the optic of type I Boston Keratoprosthesis in patients who underwent Prosthokeratoplasty.

Methods: A retrospective study was implemented in North Eye Center in Hawler city, Kurdistan region, Iraq. Data from sixty patients who underwent BKPro type-I from August 1, 2017, to March 31, 2023, were reviewed. Epithelialization of optical anterior surface was implemented through researcher in regard to finding epithelial layer affecting vision on slit lamp examination, with the visual acuity measurement pre and postoperatively.

Results: Postoperative complications were observed in 66.7% of patients following BKPro type-I, Epithelialization was present in 10% of all patients. The VA was moderate visual impairment in 83.3% of patients with epithelialization, whilesevere visual impairment in 16.7% of patients with epithelialization. There was a highly significant improvement in VA post Prosthokeratoplasty (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed between patients with postoperative epithelialization and patients without postoperative epithelialization regarding follow up periods (p=0.2). There was a significant association between late onset complications and postoperative epithelialization (p=0.03).

Conclusions: Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis is effective with restoring vision among patients with poor prognosis corneal blindness although elevated rate of postoperative complications.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Flaxman SR, Bourne RRA, Resnikoff S. Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990–2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2017; 5(12): e1221-e1234.

Mathews PM, Lindsley K, Aldave AJ, Akpek EK. Etiology of global corneal blindness and current practices of corneal transplantation: a focused review. Cornea 2018; 37(9):1198-1203.

Matthaei M, Sandhaeger H, Hermel M. Changing indications in penetrating keratoplasty: a systematic review of 34 years of global reporting. Transplantation 2017; 101(6):1387–1399.

Nonpassopon M, Niparugs M, Cortina MS. Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis: Updated Perspectives. Clin Ophthalmol 2020; 14:1189-1200.

Dohlman CH. Background of the present Boston Kpro I for graft failures. Boston Keratoprosthesis Update 2004; 1:1-2.

Aquavella JV, Gearinger MD, Akpek EK, McCormick GJ. Pediatric keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology 2007; 114(5):989–994.

Chew HF, Ayres BD, Hammersmith KM, Rapuano CJ, Laibson PR, Myers JS, et al. Boston keratoprosthesis outcomes and complications. Cornea 2009; 28(9):989-996.

Harissi-Dagher M, Dohlman CH. The Boston keratoprosthesis in severe ocular trauma. Can J Ophthalmol 2008; 43(2):165–169.

Pavan-Langston D, Dohlman CH. Boston keratoprosthesis treatment of herpes zoster neurotrophic keratopathy. Ophthalmology 2008; 115 Suppl 2: S21–S23.

Ament JD, Spurr-Michaud SJ, Dohlman CH, Gipson IK. The Boston keratoprosthesis: comparing epithelial cell compatibility with titanium and PMMA. Cornea 2009; 28(7):808–811.

Fintelmann RE, Maguire JI, Ho AC, Chew HF, Ayres BD. Characteristics of endophthalmitis in patients with the Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea 2009; 28:877–878.

Utine CA, Tzu JH, Akpek EK. Clinical features and prognosis of Boston type I keratoprosthesis-associated corneal melt. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 2011; 19:413–418.

Ciolino JB, Belin MW, Todani A, Al-Arfaj K, Rudnisky CJ. Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 study G. Retention of the Boston keratoprosthesis type 1: multicenter study results. Ophthalmology 2013; 120(6):1195–1200.

Rudnisky CJ, Belin MW, Todani A. Risk factors for the development of retroprosthetic membranes with Boston keratoprosthesis type 1: multicenter study results. Ophthalmology 2012; 119 (5):951–955.

Sayegh RR, Ang LP, Foster CS, Dohlman CH. The Boston keratoprosthesis in Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol 2008; 145(3):438–444.

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.

Ali MH, Dikopf MS, Finder AG. Assessment of glaucomatous damage after Boston keratoprosthesis implantation based on digital planimetric quantification of visual fields and optic nerve head imaging. Cornea 2018; 37(5):602–608.

Phillips DL, Hager JL, Goins KM. Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis for chemical and thermal injury. Cornea 2014; 33(9):905–909.

Khalifa YM, Davis D, Mamalis N, Moshirfar M. Epithelial growth over the optic surface of the type I Boston keratoprosthesis: histopathology and implications for biointegration. Clin Ophthalmol 2010; 4:1069–1071.

Proulx S, JdA U, Carrier P, Deschambeault A, Audet C, Giasson CJ, et al. Reconstruction of a human cornea by the self-assembly approach of tissue engineering using the three native cell types. Mol Vis 2010; 16:2192–2201.

Al-Shakarchi FI. Blindness in iraq: leading causes, target patients, and barriers to treatment. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2011; 18(3):199-203.

Avadhanam VS, Smith HE, Liu C. Keratoprostheses for corneal blindness: a review of contemporary devices. Clin Ophthalmol 2015; 9:697–720.

Magalhães FP, de Sousa LB, de Oliveira LA. Boston type I keratoprosthesis.Review. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2012; 75(3):218-222.

Fung SSM, Jabbour S, Harissi-Dagher M, Tan RRG, Hamel P, Baig K, et al. Visual Outcomes and Complications of Type I Boston Keratoprosthesis in Children: A Retrospective Multicenter Study and Literature Review. Ophthalmology 2018; 125(2):153-160.

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):1530-1538.

Al Arfaj K, Hantera M. Short-term visual outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis type I in saudi arabia. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2012; 19(1):88-92.

Wang L, Wu T, Chen X, Long-term outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis type I: the Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital experience. Br J Opthalmol 2022; 106:781-785.

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

Homayounfar G, Grassi CM, Al-Moujahed A, Colby KA, Dohlman CH, Chodosh J. Boston keratoprosthesis type I in the elderly. Br J Ophthalmol 2017; 101(4):514-518.

Rishi P, Rishi E, Koundanya VV, Mathur G, Iyer G, Srinivasan B. Viteroretinal complications in eyes with Boston Keratoprosthesis type I. Retina 2016; 36(3):603-610.

El-Khoury J, Mustafa M, Daoud R, Harissi-Dagher M. Time to achieve best postoperative visual acuity following Boston keratoprosthesis surgery. Br J Ophthalmol 2022; 106(7):929-934.

Gao M, Chen Y, Wang J, Wang C. Post-operative outcomes associated with Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation in Northeast China. Exp Ther Med 2019; 17(1):869-873.

Shapiro BL, Cortés DE, Chin EK, Li JY, Werner JS, Redenbo E, et al. Highresolution spectral domain anterior segment optical coherence tomography in type 1 Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea 2013; 32(7):951-955.