Medium term results in keratoprostheses with biocompatible and biological haptic

Abstract

Corneal grafts or limbal stem cell transplantation are often unsuccessful in patients with severe ocular surface disorders such as severe dry eye syndrome, symblepharon or diffuse vascularisation. In those patients, a keratoprosthesis (KPro) may be an alternative for the recovery of vision. Various KPro differ from each other in the material of the haptic that supports the optic cylinder. The haptic may be made of biocompatible or biological material such as tibia bone (TKPro) or dentine and alveolar bone (osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis, OOKP). On the basis of our experience, we wanted to comment on the value of different KPro. Over the last 10 years we have implanted a total of 35 KPro, 29 with biological haptic (25 OOKP and four TKPro), and six KPro with biocompatible haptic (one Legais KPro, five Pintucci KPro). A follow up examination was carried out approximately every6 months. The patients gained a visual acuity of > or =0.9 in 20.6%, of > or =0.5 in 52.9%, of > or =0.2 in 61.8% and a significant improvement in visual acuity in 76.5%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the various types of KPro concerning the best postoperative visual acuity. All patients showing poor improvement had a pre-existing end stage secondary glaucoma or other retinal damage. The median follow-up was 2.9 years (maximum 8) for OOKP, 1 year for TKPro, 1 year (maximum 2) for Pintucci Kpro and 6 month for Legeais KPro. During this period, only one of the KPro with biological haptic was lost (one TKPro after 1 year), compared with four out of six of the KPro with biocompatible haptic (P<0.0001). Fixation of the KPro by a root of the patient s own tooth (OOKP) leads to the best results in the long-term follow up, as our results as well as the literature demonstrate. As long as a KPro is in place, the visual acuity is as good as the retinal function. For the ranking of different types of KPro, the percentage and the duration of the anatomic success are most important. The comparability of the various KPro results may be limited, since the patients were not randomised and the four groups differ in number.