Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29043440›Full record

ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2018

[Boston keratoprosthesis: 73 eyes from Germany : An overview of experiences from two centers].

F Schaub, I Neuhann, P Enders, B O Bachmann, B Koller, T Neuhann, C Cursiefen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. [Surgical treatment options for congenital/infantile corneal opacities and anterior segment dysgenesis].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2022
    Review
  3. [Treatment of vascularized high-risk eyes with a Boston keratoprosthesis].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2021
    Review
  4. [Boston type I keratoprosthesis implantation technique : Video article].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

F SchaubZentrum für Augenheilkunde, Universität zu Köln, Köln, Deutschland. friederike.schaub@uk-koeln.de.
I NeuhannMVZ Prof. Neuhann mit Augenabteilung, Rotkreuzklinikum München, München, Deutschland.
P EndersZentrum für Augenheilkunde, Universität zu Köln, Köln, Deutschland.
B O BachmannZentrum für Augenheilkunde, Universität zu Köln, Köln, Deutschland.
B KollerMVZ Prof. Neuhann mit Augenabteilung, Rotkreuzklinikum München, München, Deutschland.
T NeuhannMVZ Prof. Neuhann mit Augenabteilung, Rotkreuzklinikum München, München, Deutschland.
C CursiefenZentrum für Augenheilkunde, Universität zu Köln, Köln, Deutschland.
University of Cologne · DERotkreuzklinikum München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Boston Keratoprosthesis (B-KPro) is a therapeutic option for corneal replacement for visual rehabilitation in eyes with poor a prognosis for penetrating keratoplasty (high-risk eyes). Since 2009, this approach has been used in the MVZ Prof. Neuhann, Munich, and since 2013 also at the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne. An overview of results from the first 73 eyes in these departments is presented.

methodsAll recipient eyes of both centers which received a B-KPro type I (BI-KPro) between November 2009 and March 2017 were included. Indications, preoperative findings, intraoperative procedures, and clinical results, as well as postoperative complication and retention rates were documented and analyzed.

resultsA total of 73 eyes from 68 patients (mean age 55 ± 21.1 years, range 7 months-93 years; 26 women, 42 men) were treated with a BI-KPro. In 53 eyes (72.6%) the BI-KPro was implanted due to corneal graft failure, whereas BI-KPro was used as the primary corneal replacement in 20 eyes (27.4%). In 46 eyes (63.0%) a long-term increase in visual acuity was achieved and in 21.9% visual acuity was stabilized, while a decrease in preoperative visual acuity occurred in 15.1% of cases. During an average follow-up of 24.7 ± 23.0 months (range 1-78 months), 1.7 ± 2.4 re-interventions (range 0-9) were required. Only 4 keratoprostheses (5.5%) could not be retained. In 3 eyes (4.2%), a change of the BI-KPro device was necessary.

conclusionThere is a wide range of indications for BI-KPro in eyes with a poor prognosis for conventional keratoplasty. The surgical technique is safe but with a notable postoperative complication rate, which does not seem to decrease in the medium or long term. The retention rate is excellent for eyes without stem cell deficiency. Nevertheless, the BI-KPro is the only therapeutic option for high-risk eyes and leads to a gain in visual acuity in most cases.

Indexed as

Artificial OrgansCorneal DiseasesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolCorneaFemaleGermanyHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsArtificial corneaComplicationGraft failureHigh-risk keratoplastyLimbal stem cell deficiency

Identifiers

PMID29043440
OpenAlexW2769466194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.