1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Vision Science
  4. Volume 8, 2022
  5. Article

Annual Review of Vision Science

Volume 8, 2022

The Boston Keratoprosthesis—The First 50 Years: Some Reminiscences

Abstract

Millions of people worldwide are bilaterally blind due to corneal diseases including infectious etiologies, trauma, and chemical injuries. While corneal transplantation can successfully restore sight in many, corneal graft survival decreases in eyes with chronic inflammation and corneal vascularization. Additionally, the availability of donor cornea material can be limited, especially in underdeveloped countries where corneal blindness may also be highly prevalent. Development of methods to create and implant an artificial cornea (keratoprosthesis) may be the only option for patients whose eye disease is not suitable for corneal transplantation or who live in regions where corneal transplantation is not possible. The Boston Keratoprosthesis (B-KPro) is the most commonly implanted keratoprosthesis worldwide, having restored vision in thousands of patients. This article describes the initial design of the B-KPro and the modifications that have been made over many years. Additionally, some of the complications of surgical implantation and long-term care challenges, particularly complicating inflammation and glaucoma, are discussed.

Keyword(s): autobiography, Boston KPro, corneal blindness, corneal transplantation, Dohlman, keratoprosthesis
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-100820-021253
2022-09-15
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/vision/8/1/annurev-vision-100820-021253.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-100820-021253&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abdelaziz M, Dohlman CH, Sayegh RR. 2017. Measuring forward light scatter by the Boston Keratoprosthesis in various configurations. Cornea 36:6732–35
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Adesina OO, Vickery JA, Ferguson CL, Stone DU. 2013. Stromal melting associated with a cosmetic contact lens over a Boston Keratoprosthesis: treatment with a conjunctival flap. Eye Contact Lens 39:3e4–6
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahmad S, Mathews PM, Lindsley K, Alkharashi M, Hwang FS et al. 2016. Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis versus repeat donor keratoplasty for corneal graft failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 123:1165–77
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Akpek EK, Aldave AJ, Aquavella JV. 2012. The use of precut, γ-irradiated corneal lenticules in Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis implantation. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 154:3495–98
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Akpek EK, Cassard SD, Dunlap K, Hahn S, Ramulu PY. 2015. Donor corneal transplantation versus Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis in patients with previous graft failures: a retrospective single center study (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans. Am. Ophthalmol. Soc. 113:T3
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Alexander JK, Basak SK, Padilla MD, Yu F, Aldave AJ 2015. International outcomes of the Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis in Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Cornea 34:111387–94
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Ali MH, Dikopf MS, Finder AG, Aref AA, Vajaranant T et al. 2018. Assessment of glaucomatous damage after Boston Keratoprosthesis implantation based on digital planimetric quantification of visual fields and optic nerve head imaging. Cornea 37:5602–8
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Al-Merjan J, Sadeq N, Dohlman CH. 2000. Temporary tissue coverage of keratoprosthesis. Middle East Afr. J. Ophthalmol. 8:12–18
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Ament JD, Spurr-Michaud SJ, Dohlman CH, Gipson IK. 2009. The Boston Keratoprosthesis: comparing corneal epithelial cell compatibility with titanium and PMMA. Cornea 28:7808–11
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Ament JD, Tilahun Y, Mudawi E, Pineda R. 2010. Role for ipsilateral autologous corneas as a carrier for the Boston Keratoprosthesis: the Africa experience. Arch. Ophthalmol. 128:6795–97
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Anseth A, Dohlman CH, Albert D 1991. Epithelial downgrowth—fistula repair and keratoplasty. Refract. Corneal Surg. 7:23–27
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Aquavella JV. 2008. Keratoprosthesis in the treatment of congenital cornea opacity. Contemp. Ophthalmol. 7:81–6
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Aquavella JV, Gearinger MD, Akpek EK, McCormick GJ. 2007. Pediatric keratoprosthesis.. Ophthalmology 114:5989–94
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Aquavella JV, Wozniak RA. 2018. Benefits of multidisciplinary team approach to infant keratoprosthesis. Int. J. Ophthal. Vision Res. 2:18–10
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bakshi SK, Graney J, Paschalis EI, Agarwal S, Basu S et al. 2020. Design and outcomes of a novel keratoprosthesis: addressing unmet needs in end-stage cicatricial corneal blindness. Cornea 39:4484–90
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bakshi SK, Paschalis EI, Graney J, Chodosh J. 2019. Lucia and beyond: development of an affordable keratoprosthesis. Cornea 38:4492–97
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Baratz KH, Goins KM. 2017. The Boston Keratoprosthesis: highs and lows of intraocular pressure and outcomes. Ophthalmology 124:19–11
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Behlau I, Martin KV, Martin JN, Naumova EN, Cadorette JJ et al. 2014. Infectious endophthalmitis in Boston Keratoprosthesis: incidence and prevention. Acta Ophthalmol 92:7e546–55
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Behlau I, Mukherjee K, Todani A, Tisdale AS, Cade F et al. 2011. Biocompatibility and biofilm inhibition of N,N-hexyl,methyl-polyethylenimine bonded to Boston Keratoprosthesis materials. Biomaterials 32:348783–96
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Beyer J, Todani A, Dohlman CH. 2011. Prevention of visually debilitating deposits on soft contact lenses in keratoprosthesis patients. Cornea 30:121419–22
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Bielory BP, Jacobs D, Alfonso E, Perez VL, Dubovy SR, Berrocal A 2012. Epithelial downgrowth after Type I Boston Keratoprosthesis manifesting as tractional retinal detachment and epiretinal membrane. Arch. Ophthalmol. 130:1118–20
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Botelho PJ, Congdon NG, Handa JT, Akpek EK. 2006. Keratoprosthesis in high-risk pediatric corneal transplantation: first 2 cases. Arch. Ophthalmol. 124:91356–57
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Brown C, Rowlands M, Lee D, Geffin JA, Huang J. 2016. Keratoprosthesis in pediatric keratitis-icthyosiform-deafness syndrome. J. AAPOS 20:173–75
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Cade F, Grosskreutz CL, Tauber A, Dohlman CH. 2011. Glaucoma in eyes with severe chemical burn, before and after keratoprosthesis. Cornea 30:121322–27
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cade F, Paschalis EI, Regatieri CV, Vavvas DG, Dana R, Dohlman CH. 2014. Alkali burn to the eye: protection using TNF-α inhibition. Cornea 33:4382–89
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Camacho L, Soldevila A, de la Paz MF. 2020. Transmucosal Boston Keratoprosthesis Type I in a patient with advanced ocular cicatricial pemphigoid. Cornea 39:121563–65
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Cardona H. 1962. Keratoprosthesis. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 54:284–94
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Castroviejo R, Cardona H, DeVoe AG. 1969. Present status of prosthokeratoplasty. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 68:613–25
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Chan CC, Holland EJ, Sawyer WI, Neff KD, Petersen MR, Riemann CD. 2011. Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis combined with silicone oil for treatment of hypotony in prephthisical eyes. Cornea 30:101105–9
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Chang HY, Luo ZK, Chodosh J, Dohlman CH, Colby KA. 2015. Primary implantation of Type I Boston Keratoprosthesis in nonautoimmune corneal diseases. Cornea 34:3264–70
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Chaudhary O, Shamie N. 2012. Optic centration in the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 53:144059
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Chen X, Lei F, Zhou C, Chodosh J, Wang L et al. 2020. Glaucoma after ocular surgery or trauma: the role of infiltrating monocytes and their response to cytokine inhibitors. Am. J. Pathol. 190:102056–66
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Chen Y, Wang C, Liu Q, Wang Z, Gao M 2020. Comparison of the clinical efficacy of Boston Keratoprosthesis Type I and repetitive penetrating keratoplasty for refractory keratopathy. J. Craniofac. Surg. 31:2e194–99
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Ciolino JB, Hoare TR, Iwata NG, Behlau I, Dohlman CH et al. 2009. A drug-eluting contact lens. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 50:73346–52
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Ciolino JB, Hudson SP, Mobbs AN, Hoare TR, Iwata NG et al. 2011. A prototype antifungal contact lens. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 52:96286–91
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Ciolino JB, Stefanescu CF, Ross AE, Salvador-Culla B, Cortez P et al. 2014. In vivo performance of a drug-eluting contact lens to treat glaucoma for a month. Biomaterials 35:1432–39
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Črnej A, Omoto M, Dohlman TH, Dohlman CH, Dana R. 2014a. Corneal inflammation after miniature keratoprosthesis implantation. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 56:1185–89
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Črnej A, Paschalis EI, Salvador-Culla B, Tauber A, Drnovsek-Olup B et al. 2014b. Glaucoma progression and role of glaucoma surgery in patients with Boston Keratoprosthesis. Cornea 33:4349–54
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Cruzat A, Shukla A, Dohlman CH, Colby K. 2013a. Wound anatomy after Type I Boston Keratoprosthesis using oversized back plates. Cornea 32:121531–36
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Cruzat A, Tauber A, Shukla A, Paschalis EI, Pineda R, Dohlman CH. 2013b. Low-cost and readily available tissue carriers for the Boston Keratoprosthesis: a review of possibilities. J. Ophthalmol. 2013:686587
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Dohlman CH. 1983. Biology of complications following keratoprosthesis. Cornea 2:3175–76
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Dohlman CH. 1993. Postoperative regimen and repair of complications after keratoprosthesis surgery. Refract. Corneal Surg. 9:198
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Dohlman CH 1997. Keratoprosthesis. Cornea JH Krachmer, MJ Mannis, EJ Holland 1855–63 St. Louis, MO: Mosby
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Dohlman CH 1999. Guillaume Pellier de Quengsy. Corneal Transplantation: A History in Profiles MJ Mannis, AA Mannis, DM Albert 53–64 Hirschberg Hist. Ophthalmol. 6. Oostende, Belg: J.P. Wayenborgh
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Dohlman CH, Al-Merjan J, Sadeq N. 2016. Total conjunctival flap in KPro surgery. Boston KPro News Sept. No. 12. https://www.masseyeandear.org/assets/MEE/pdfs/professionals/kpro/kpro-newsletter-2016.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Dohlman CH, Cade F, Regatieri CV, Zhou C, Lei F et al. 2018. Chemical burns of the eye: the role of retinal injury and new therapeutic possibilities. Cornea 37:2248–51
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Dohlman CH, Chodosh J, Gelfand L, Paschalis EI. 2020a. Long-term glaucoma after Boston KPro. Boston KPro News Aug. No. 15. https://www.masseyeandear.org/assets/MEE/pdfs/professionals/kpro/2020kpronewsletter.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Dohlman CH, Cruzat A, White M. 2014. The Boston Keratoprosthesis 2014: a step in the evolution of artificial corneas. Spektrum Augenheilkd 28:6226–33
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Dohlman CH, Dudenhoefer EJ, Khan BF, Dohlman JG 2002a. Corneal blindness from end-stage Sjogren's syndrome and graft-versus-host disease. Lacrimal Gland, Tear Film, and Dry Eye Syndromes, Vol. 3: Basic Science and Clinical Relevance Part B DA Sullivan, ME Stern, K Tsubota, DA Dartt, RM Sullivan, BB Bromberg pp. 1335–38 Berlin: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Dohlman CH, Dudenhoefer EJ, Khan BF, Morneault S. 2002b. Protection of the ocular surface after keratoprosthesis surgery: the role of soft contact lenses. CLAO J. 28:272–74
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Dohlman CH, Harissi-Dagher M, Graney J. 2007. The Boston Keratoprosthesis: a new threadless design. Digit. . J. Ophthalmol. 13:3
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Dohlman CH, Harissi-Dagher M, Khan BF, Sippel KC, Aquavella JV, Graney JM. 2006. Introduction to the use of the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Expert Rev. Ophthalmol. 1:41–48
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Dohlman CH, Robert MC, Paschalis EI 2020b. Treatment of chemical burn to the eye: a changing picture. Foundations of Corneal Disease K Colby, R Dana 109–19 Berlin: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Dohlman CH, Schneider HA, Doane MG. 1974. Prosthokeratoplasty. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 77:5694–700
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Dohlman CH, Waller SG, Netland PA 1996. Keratoprosthesis surgery. Ophthalmic Surgery Update TD Lindquist, RL Lindstrom 1–31 Chicago: Mosby. , 4th ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Dohlman CH, Webster RG, Biswas SK, Doane MG, Holmberg A. 1970. Collar-button prosthesis glued to a corneal graft. Corneal and External Diseases of the Eye FM Polack 189–92 Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Dohlman CH, Webster RG, Biswas SK, Refojo MF. 1969. Prothèses cornéennes à double plaque maintenues à l'aide d'adhésifs chirurgicaux. Arch. Ophtalmol. (Paris) 29:169–74
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Dohlman CH, Zhou C, Lei F, Cade F, Regatieri CV et al. 2019. Glaucoma after corneal trauma or surgery: a rapid, inflammatory, IOP independent pathway. Cornea 38:121589–94
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Dohlman JG, Foster CS, Dohlman CH. 2009. Boston Keratoprosthesis in Stevens-Johnson syndrome: a case of using infliximab to prevent tissue necrosis. Digit. J. Ophthalmol. 15:1
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Dohlman T, Fernandez AA, Lertsuwanroj B, Ciralsky J. 2016. Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1 in the pediatric population. Curr. Ophthalmol. Rep. 4:3124–30
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Dong Y, Yang J, Wang L, Ma X, Huang Y et al. 2014. An improved biofunction of titanium for keratoprosthesis by hydroxyapatite-coating. J. Biomater. Appl. 28:7990–97
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Donn A. 1976. Aphakia bullous keratopathy treated with prosthokeratoplasty. Arch. Ophthalmol. 94:270–75
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Driver TH, Aravena C, Duong HNV, Christenbury JG, Yu F et al. 2018. Outcomes of the Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis as the primary penetrating corneal procedure. Cornea 37:111400–7
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Dudenhoefer EJ, Nouri M, Gipson IK, Baratz KH, Tisdale AS et al. 2003. Histopathology of explanted collar button keratoprostheses: a clinicopathologic correlation. Cornea 22:5424–28
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Durand ML, Dohlman CH. 2009. Successful prevention of bacterial endophthalmitis in eyes with the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Cornea 28:8896–901
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Eghrari AO, Ahmad S, Ramulu P, Iliff NT, Akpek EK. 2016. The usage of a conjunctival flap to improve retention of Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis in severe ocular surface disease. Ocul. Immunol. Inflamm. 24:5555–60
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Fadlallah A, Atallah M, Cherfan G, Awwad ST, Syed ZA, Melki SA. 2014. Gamma-irradiated corneas as carriers for the Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis: advantages and outcomes in a surgical mission setting. Cornea 33:3235–39
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Fadous R, Levallois-Gignac S, Vaillancourt L, Robert MC, Harissi-Dagher M. 2015. The Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1 as primary penetrating corneal procedure. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 99:121664–68
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Farooq AV, Hou JH, Jassim S, Haq Z, Tu EY et al. 2018. Biofilm formation on bandage contact lenses worn by patients with the Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis: a pilot comparison study of prophylactic topical vancomycin 15 mg/mL and linezolid 0.2. Eye Contact Lens 44:Suppl. 1S106–9
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Fernandez AG, Radcliffe NM, Sippel KC, Rosenblatt MI, Sood P et al. 2012. Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis-donor cornea interface evaluated by high-definition spectral-domain anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Clin. Ophthalmol. 6:1355–59
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Fung SSM, Jabbour S, Harissi-Dagher M, Tan RRG, Hamel P et al. 2018. Visual outcomes and complications of Type I Boston Keratoprosthesis in children: a retrospective multicenter study and literature review. Ophthalmology 125:2153–60
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Gain P, Jullienne P, He Z, Aldossary M, Acquard S et al. 2016. Global survey of corneal transplantation and eye banking. JAMA Ophthalmol. 134:167–73
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Garcia JP Jr., de la Cruz J, Rosen RB, Buxton DF. 2008. Imaging implanted keratoprostheses with anterior-segment optical coherence tomography and ultrasound biomicroscopy. Cornea 27:2180–88
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Garcia JP Jr., Ritterband DC, Buxton DF, de la Cruz J. 2010. Evaluation of the stability of Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis-donor cornea interface using anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Cornea 29:91031–35
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Goldman DR, Hubschman JP, Aldave AJ, Chiang A, Huang JS et al. 2013. Postoperative posterior segment complications in eyes treated with the Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis. Retina 33:3532–41
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Gonzalez-Andrades M, Sharifi R, Islam MM, Divoux T, Haist M et al. 2018. Improving the practicality and safety of artificial corneas: pre-assembly and gamma-rays sterilization of the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Ocul. Surf. 16:3322–30
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Grassi CM, Cruzat A, Taniguchi EV, Črnej A, Colby KA et al. 2015. Periprosthetic tissue loss in patients with idiopathic vitreous inflammation after the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Cornea 34:111378–82
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Harissi-Dagher M, Beyer J, Dohlman CH. 2008. The role of soft contact lenses as an adjunct to the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Int. Ophthalmol. Clin. 48:243–51
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Harissi-Dagher M, Khan BF, Schaumberg DA, Dohlman CH. 2007. Importance of nutrition to corneal grafts when used as a carrier of the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Cornea 26:5564–68
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Haugsdal JM, Goins KM, Greiner MA, Kwon YH, Alward WL, Wagoner MD. 2016. Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis for primary congenital glaucoma. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 100:3328–31
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Helms RW, Zhao X, Sayegh RR. 2018. Keratoprosthesis decentration and tilt results in degradation in image quality. Cornea 37:6772–77
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Homayounfar G, Grassi CM, Al-Moujahed A, Colby KA, Dohlman CH, Chodosh J. 2017. Boston Keratoprosthesis Type I in the elderly. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 101:4514–18
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Iyer G, Srinivasan B, Agarwal S, Pattanaik R, Rishi E et al. 2019. Keratoprostheses in silicone oil-filled eyes: long-term outcomes. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 103:6781–88
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Iyer G, Srinivasan B, Gupta J, Rishi P, Sen PR et al. 2011. Boston Keratoprosthesis for keratopathy in eyes with retained silicone oil: a new indication. Cornea 30:101083–87
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Jardeleza MS, Rheaume MA, Chodosh J, Lane AM, Dohlman CH. 2015. Retinal detachments after Boston Keratoprosthesis: incidence, predisposing factors, and visual outcomes. Digit. J. Ophthalmol. 21:4
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Jeong KJ, Wang L, Stefanescu CF, Lawlor MW, Polat J et al. 2011. Polydopamine coatings enhance biointegration of a model polymeric implant. Soft Matter 7:188305–12
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Kammerdiener LL, Speiser JL, Aquavella JV, Harissi-Dagher M, Dohlman CH et al. 2016. Protective effect of soft contact lenses after Boston Keratoprosthesis. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 100:4549–52
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Kamyar R, Weizer JS, de Paula FH, Stein JD, Moroi SE et al. 2012. Glaucoma associated with Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis. Cornea 31:2134–39
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Kanellopoulos AJ, Asimellis G. 2014. Long-term safety and efficacy of high-fluence collagen crosslinking of the vehicle cornea in Boston Keratoprosthesis type I. Cornea 33:9914–18
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Kang JJ, Allemann N, de la Cruz J, Cortina MS. 2013a. Serial analysis of anterior chamber depth and angle status using anterior segment optical coherence tomography after Boston Keratoprosthesis. Cornea 32:101369–74
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Kang JJ, Allemann N, Vajaranant TS, de la Cruz J, Cortina MS. 2013b. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography for the quantitative evaluation of the anterior segment following Boston Keratoprosthesis. PLOS ONE 8:8e70673
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Kang JJ, de la Cruz J, Cortina MS. 2012. Visual outcomes of Boston Keratoprosthesis implantation as the primary penetrating corneal procedure. Cornea 31:121436–40
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Kang KB, Karas FI, Rai R, Hallak JA, Kang JJ et al. 2018. Five year outcomes of Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis as primary versus secondary penetrating corneal procedure in a matched case control study. PLOS ONE 13:2e0192381
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Karas FI, Arteaga A, Barrionuevo P, Cao D, McAnany JJ et al. 2019. Intraocular light scatter in eyes with the Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis. Cornea 38:150–53
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Kaufman AR, Cruzat A, Colby KA. 2018. Clinical outcomes using oversized back plates in Type I Boston Keratoprosthesis. Eye Contact Lens 44:6399–404
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Khalifa YM, Moshirfar M. 2010. Improved centration of the Type I Boston Keratoprosthesis in donor carrier tissue. Clin. Ophthalmol. 4:931–33
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Khoueir Z, Jassim F, Braaf B, Poon LY, Tsikata E et al. 2019. Three-dimensional optical coherence tomography imaging for glaucoma associated with Boston Keratoprosthesis Type I and II. J. Glaucoma 28:8718–26
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Kiang L, Rosenblatt MI, Sartaj R, Fernandez AG, Kiss S et al. 2012. Surface epithelialization of the Type I Boston Keratoprosthesis front plate: immunohistochemical and high-definition optical coherence tomography characterization. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 250:81195–99
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Kim S, Bispo PJM, Tanner EEL, Mitragotri S, Silva NE et al. 2020. The search for antifungal prophylaxis after artificial corneal surgery—an in vitro study. Cornea 39:121547–55
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Kornberg DL, Yannuzzi NA, Klufas MA, D'Amico DJ, Orlin A, Kiss S. 2016. Ultra-widefield imaging of posterior segment pathology in the setting of the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Retina 36:61101–10
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Kruh JN, Kruh-Garcia NA, Foster CS. 2015. Evaluation of the effect of N-acetylcysteine on protein deposition on contact lenses in patients with the Boston Keratoprosthesis Type I. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. Ther. 31:6314–22
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Kwitko S. 2019. Response: long-term outcomes with Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis in ocular burns. Arq. Bras. Oftalmol. 82:3254–55
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Kyrillos R, Harissi-Dagher M. 2011. Prolene monofilament suture in Boston Keratoprosthesis surgery. Digit. J. Ophthalmol. 17:1
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Langenbucher A, Szentmáry N, Speck A, Seitz B, Eppig T. 2013. Calculation of power and field of view of keratoprostheses. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 33:4412–19
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Levy-Clarke G, Jabs DA, Read RW, Rosenbaum JT, Vitale A, Van Gelder RN. 2014. Expert panel recommendations for the use of anti-tumor necrosis factor biologic agents in patients with ocular inflammatory disorders. Ophthalmology 121:785–96.e3
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Ma J, Graney JM, Dohlman CH. 2005. Repeat penetrating keratoplasty versus the Boston Keratoprosthesis in graft failure. Int. Ophthalmol. Clin. N. Am. 45:449–59
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Mannis MJ, Dohlman CH 1999. The artificial cornea: a brief history. Corneal Transplantation: A History in Profiles MJ Mannis, AA Mannis, DM Albert 321–35 Hirschberg Hist. Ophthalmol. 6. Oostende, Belg: J.P. Wayenborgh
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Miyamoto F, Sotozono C, Ikeda T, Kinoshita S. 1998. Retinal cytokine response in mouse alkali-burned eye. Ophthalmic Res. 30:168–71
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Modjtahedi BS, Eliott D 2014. Vitreoretinal complications of the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Semin. Ophthalmol. 29:5–6338–48
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Moshiri A, Safi M, Morse LS, Tang VD, Yiu G et al. 2019. Posterior segment complications and impact on long-term visual outcomes in eyes with a Type 1 Boston Keratoprosthesis. Cornea 38:91111–16
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Muzychuk AK, Durr GM, Shine JJ, Robert MC, Harissi-Dagher M. 2017a. No light perception outcomes following Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1 surgery. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 181:46–54
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Muzychuk AK, Robert MC, Dao S, Harissi-Dagher M. 2017b. Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1: a randomized controlled trial of fresh versus frozen corneal donor carriers with long-term follow-up. Ophthalmology 124:120–26
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Nau AC, Drexler S, Dhaliwal DK, Mah F, Raju L, Deschler E. 2014. Contact lens fitting and longterm management for the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Eye Contact Lens 40:3185–89
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Netland PA, Terada H, Dohlman CH. 1998. Glaucoma associated with keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology 105:4751–57
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Ono T, Mori Y, Nejima R, Iwasaki T, Fukuda M et al. 2020. Short-term interim results of clinical outcomes and complications after implantation of Boston Keratoprosthesis in Japanese patients. Cornea 39:Suppl. 1S28–33
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Papakostas TD, Le HG, Chodosh J, Jacobs DS. 2015. Prosthetic replacement of the ocular surface ecosystem as treatment for ocular surface disease in patients with a history of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. Ophthalmology 122:248–53
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Parel JM. 1999. 200 years of KPro. Pellier de Quengsy and the artificial cornea. An. Inst. Barraquer 28:33–41
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Paschalis EI, Chodosh J, Spurr-Michaud S, Cruzat A, Tauber A et al. 2013. In vitro and in vivo assessment of titanium surface modification for coloring the backplate of the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 54:63863–73
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Paschalis EI, Lei F, Zhou C, Chen XN, Kapoulea V et al. 2019a. Microglia regulate neuroglia remodeling in various ocular and retinal injuries. J. Immunol. 202:2539–49
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Paschalis EI, Lei F, Zhou C, Kapoulea V, Dana R et al. 2018a. Permanent neuroglial remodeling of the retina following infiltration of CSF1R inhibition-resistant peripheral monocytes. PNAS 115:48E11359–68
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Paschalis EI, Lei F, Zhou C, Kapoulea V, Thanos A et al. 2018b. The role of microglia and peripheral monocytes in retinal damage after corneal chemical injury. Am. J. Pathol. 188:71580–96
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Paschalis EI, Taniguchi EV, Chodosh J, Pasquale LR, Colby K et al. 2019b. Blood levels of tumor necrosis factor alpha and its type 2 receptor are elevated in patients with Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis. Curr. Eye Res. 44:6599–606
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Paschalis EI, Zhou C, Lei F, Scott N, Kapoulea V et al. 2017. Mechanisms of retinal damage after ocular alkali burns. Am. J. Pathol. 187:61327–42
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Pineles SL, Ela-Dalman N, Rosenbaum AL, Aldave AJ, Velez FG. 2010. Binocular visual function in patients with Boston type I keratoprostheses. Cornea 29:121397–400
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Poddar R, Cortés DE, Werner JS, Mannis MJ, Zawadzki RJ. 2013. Three-dimensional anterior segment imaging in patients with Type I Boston Keratoprosthesis with switchable full depth range swept source optical coherence tomography. J. Biomed. Opt. 18:886002
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Qian CX, Hassanaly S, Harissi-Dagher M. 2015. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography in the long-term follow-up and detection of glaucoma in Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology 122:2317–25
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Rachitskaya AV, Dubovy SR, Hussain RM, Perez VL, Alfonso EC, Berrocal AM 2015. Epithelial downgrowth in the vitreous cavity and on the retina in enucleated specimens and in eyes with visual potential. Retina 35:81688–95
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Riau AK, Venkatraman SS, Dohlman CH, Mehta JS. 2017. Surface modifications of the PMMA optic of a keratoprosthesis to improve biointegration. Cornea 36:1S15–25
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Rishi P, Rishi E, Koundanya VV, Mathur G, Iyer G, Srinivasan B. 2016. Vitreoretinal complications in eyes with Boston Keratoprosthesis Type I. Retina 36:3603–10
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Robert MC, Biernacki K, Harissi-Dagher M. 2012. Boston Keratoprosthesis Type I surgery: use of frozen versus fresh corneal donor carriers. Cornea 31:4339–45
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Robert MC, Frenette M, Zhou C, Yan Y, Chodosh J et al. 2016. A drug delivery system for administration of anti-TNF-α antibody. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 5:211
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Salvador-Culla B, Behlau I, Sayegh RR, Stacy RC, Dohlman CH, Delori F. 2014. Very low risk of light-induced retinal damage during Boston keratoprosthesis surgery: a rabbit study. Cornea 33:2184–90
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Salvador-Culla B, Jeong KJ, Kolovou PE, Chiang HH, Chodosh J et al. 2016. Titanium coating of the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 5:217
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Sa-Ngiampornpanit T, Thiagalingam S, Dohlman CH. 2009. Boston Keratoprosthesis in epithelial downgrowth. Digit. J. Ophthalmol. 15:1
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Sayegh RR, Ang LP, Foster CS, Dohlman CH. 2008. The Boston Keratoprosthesis in Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 145:3438–44
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Sayegh RR, Avena Diaz L, Vargas-Martín F, Webb RH, Dohlman CH, Peli E 2010. Optical functional properties of the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 51:2857–63
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Sayegh RR, Dohlman CH. 2013. Wide-angle fundus imaging through the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Retina 33:61188–92
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Sayegh RR, Dohlman CH, Greenstein SH, Peli E. 2015. The Boston Keratoprosthesis provides a wide depth of focus. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 35:139–44
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Shapiro BL, Cortés DE, Chin EK, Li JY, Werner JS et al. 2013. High-resolution spectral domain anterior segment optical coherence tomography in Type 1 Boston Keratoprosthesis. Cornea 32:7951–55
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Sharifi R, Mahmoudzadeh S, Islam MM, Koza D, Dohlman CH et al. 2020. Covalent functionalization of PMMA surface with L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine (L-DOPA) to enhance its biocompatibility and adhesion to corneal tissue. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 7:11900767
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Siebelmann S, Steven P, Hos D, Hüttmann G, Lankenau E et al. 2016. Errata: advantages of microscope-integrated intraoperative online optical coherence tomography: usage in Boston Keratoprosthesis Type I surgery. J. Biomed. Opt. 21:229801
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Silva LD, Santos A, Sousa LB, Allemann N, Oliveira LA. 2018. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography findings in Type I Boston Keratoprosthesis. Arq. Bras. Oftalmol. 81:142–46
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Stacy RC, Jakobiec FA, Michaud NA, Dohlman CH, Colby KA. 2011. Characterization of retrokeratoprosthetic membranes in the Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis. Arch. Ophthalmol. 129:3310–16
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Talajic JC, Agoumi Y, Gagné S, Moussally K, Harissi-Dagher M. 2012. Prevalence, progression, and impact of glaucoma on vision after Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis surgery. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 153:2267–74
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Todani A, Ciolino JB, Ament JD, Colby KA, Pineda R et al. 2011. Titanium back plate for a PMMA keratoprosthesis: clinical outcomes. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 249:101515–18
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Tóth G, Bucher F, Siebelmann S, Bachmann B, Hermann M et al. 2016. In situ corneal cross-linking for recurrent corneal melting after Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis. Cornea 35:6884–87
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Toygar O, Mestanoglu M, Riemann CD. 2019. Intraoperative ocular manometry in silicone oil-filled eyes with a Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis. Retina 39:112155–60
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Traish AS, Chodosh J. 2010. Expanding application of the Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis due to advances in design and improved post-operative therapeutic strategies. Semin. Ophthalmol. 25:5–6239–43
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Turss R, Friend J, Dohlman CH. 1970. The effect of a corneal fluid barrier on the nutrition of the epithelium. Exp. Eye Res. 9:254–59
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Utine CA, Gehlbach PL, Zimmer-Galler I, Akpek EK. 2010. Permanent keratoprosthesis combined with pars plana vitrectomy and silicone oil injection for visual rehabilitation of chronic hypotony and corneal opacity. Cornea 29:121401–5
     [Google Scholar]
  151. Wang L, Huang Y, Gong Y, Tian L, Wang Q et al. 2012. Role for autologous corneas as a carrier for the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Chin. J. Optom. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 14:8453–56
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Wang L, Jeong KJ, Chiang HH, Zurakowski D, Behlau I et al. 2011. Hydroxyapatite for keratoprosthesis biointegration. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 52:107392–99
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Yaghouti F, Nouri M, Abad JC, Power WJ, Doane MG, Dohlman CH. 2001. Keratoprosthesis: preoperative prognostic categories. Cornea 20:119–23
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Yang M, Du GP, Wang LQ, Wang XP, Cui FZ et al. 2013. The expression level of MMP-2 and collagen of hydroxyapatite modified titanium for keratoprosthesis in the corneal stroma of rabbits. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi 49:10914–20
     [Google Scholar]
  155. Zarei-Ghanavati S, Irandoost F. 2015. Treatment of refractory keratitis after a Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis with corneal collagen cross-linking. Cornea 34:91161–63
     [Google Scholar]
  156. Zhou C, Lei F, Chodosh J, Paschalis EI. 2016. The role of titanium surface microtopography on adhesion, proliferation, transformation, and matrix deposition of corneal cells. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 57:41927–38
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Zhou C, Robert MC, Kapoulea V, Lei F, Stagner AM et al. 2017. Sustained subconjunctival delivery of infliximab protects the cornea and retina following alkali burn to the eye. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 58:196–105
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-100820-021253
Loading
The Boston Keratoprosthesis—The First 50 Years: Some Reminiscences
Annual Review of Vision Science 8, 1 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-100820-021253
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-100820-021253
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-100820-021253
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error