Management of Suprachoroidal Hemorrhage in a Patient With Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis

Purpose: Suprachoroidal hemorrhage (SCH) is a rare but vision-threatening complication in patients with keratoprosthesis devices (KPro), particularly in the setting of concurrent glaucoma tube shunts. Although there are many approaches to draining an SCH, surgery can be especially challenging in these patients because a crowded anterior chamber, and frequent anterior extension of the SCH. Methods: A case report is discussed. Results: We describe a novel approach to surgical drainage of SCH in a 64-year-old monocular patient with a Type I Boston KPro, an Ahmed valve, and aphakia. Conclusion: Successful repair of appositional SCH in the context of KPro can be safely and effectively achieved by injecting viscoelastic through the backplate holes of the KPro, thereby providing internal tamponade within the vitreous compartment while liquefied hemorrhage is drained by sclerotomy.

Outcomes of the Boston type 1 and the Aurolab keratoprosthesis in eyes with limbal stem cell deficiency

PurposeTo analyse the outcomes of keratoprosthesis in eyes with limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) and to compare the outcomes in two different keratoprosthesis devices.MethodsThis was a single-centre retrospective comparative case series which included 81 eyes of patients with severe bilateral corneal blindness secondary to LSCD. The patients underwent either Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (Boston Kpro, n=44) or Aurolab keratoprosthesis (AuroKpro, n=37) implantation. The primary outcome measures of anatomical retention and functional recovery of 20/200 or better visual acuity at yearly time points until 5 years of follow-up were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe most common indication overall was chemical injury (64.2%). Anatomical retention rates were similar in the Boston Kpro (30/44, 68.2%) and AuroKpro (23/37, 62.2%) groups (p=0.89). Kaplan-Meier survival rates at 5 years of follow-up were greater for the Boston Kpro group with respect to both anatomical retention (58.51%±9% vs 43.8±12%; p=0.23) as well as functional recovery (42.61%±8% vs 35.03±10%; p=0.9); these differences were not statistically significant. Overall, the most common complication was new-onset glaucoma (59%; 48/81). The difference in incidence rate of this complication was not statistically significant among the two groups (p=0.09).ConclusionKeratoprosthesis is an effective treatment option for patients with corneal blindness secondary to LSCD. In a setting where LSCD is a common cause of corneal blindness, the AuroKpro, when available can be considered an alternative to the Boston Kpro to achieve anatomical and functional success in patients who otherwise would not have access to this device.