Home > News > Management of Glaucoma Following Boston Keratoprosthesis
Glaucoma
Read Time: 2 mins

Management of Glaucoma Following Boston Keratoprosthesis

Published Online: August 5th 2012 European Ophthalmic Review, 2012;6(4):214-7 DOI: http://doi.org/10.17925/EOR.2012.06.04.214
Authors: Gargi Khare Vora, Kathryn A Colby
Quick Links:
Abstract
Article
Article Information
Abstract:
Overview

Boston keratoprosthesis (KPro) surgery has revolutionised the treatment of corneal and ocular surface disease. At present, glaucoma is the most important vision-threatening complication following KPro surgery. Diagnosis of glaucoma in KPro patients is difficult since the current method of determining intraocular pressure (IOP) by digital palpation is subjective and dependent upon the skill of the examiner. Optic nerve evaluation and visual field testing are important tools to follow glaucoma progression. Management of glaucoma following Boston KPro consists of medical therapy and surgical options. Glaucoma drainage devices are useful in this population but can have a variety of complications. Cyclophotocoagulation, either the non-invasive transscleral method or endocyclophotocoagulation, is also useful as an adjunctive measure in glaucoma management. Appropriate diagnosis and management of glaucoma is essential after KPro surgery to reduce the chance of vision loss.

Keywords

Keratoprosthesis, glaucoma, intraocular pressure, Ahmed valve

Article:

The explosion of Boston keratoprosthesis (KPro) surgery over the last 10 years has revolutionised the field of cornea and ocular surface disease. Options for patients with severe inflammation of the corneal and conjunctival surface were limited prior to the development of the KPro surgical technique by Dohlman et al.1 The Type 1 KPro, which is most frequently used, has a collar button design consisting of two plates joined by a stem, which forms the optical portion (see Figure 1). A fresh donor graft is used as a carrier for the device and a soft contact lens is placed over the ocular surface. The Type 2 Boston KPro is similar in design except that the 2 mm optical portion protrudes through a tarsorrhaphy.2

The Boston KPro allows for dramatic and rapid visual improvement in patients whose ocular disease is confined to the anterior segment.3 In the past, vision loss following Boston KPro could result from a number of complications including infection, corneal melting and retinal detachment. Modifications in device design and post-operative management have reduced the occurrence of these problems. At present, glaucoma is the most important threat to long-term preservation of vision following Boston KPro surgery.4–6 Appropriate diagnosis and management of glaucoma following Boston KPro is vital to ensure the best outcomes.

Pre-operative Glaucoma
Many patients who are candidates for Boston KPro surgery have pre-existing glaucoma. Previous case series from multiple institutions have shown a prevalence of pre-operative glaucoma of between 36 and 76 %.5–10 This is not surprising since patients who need a Boston KPro have often had multiple prior corneal surgeries or have diseases that cause intraocular inflammation, necessitating topical, subtenon or systemic glucocorticoids.2 Steroid-response ocular hypertension is prevalent among these patients, which can contribute to the development of glaucoma.11

To view the full article in PDF or eBook formats, please click on the icons above.

Article Information:
Disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare

Correspondence

Kathryn A Colby, Cornea and Refractive Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, 243 Charles Street, Boston, MA 02114, US. E: KAColby@meei.harvard.edu

Received

2012-01-05T00:00:00

References

  1. Dohlman C, Doane M, Keratoprosthesis in end-stage dry eye, Adv Exp Med Biol, 1994;350:561–4.
  2. Khan BF, Harissi-Dagher M, Khan DM, Dohlman CH, Advances in Boston keratoprosthesis: enhancing retention and prevention of infection and inflammation, Int Ophthalmol Clin, 2007;47(2):61–71.
  3. Dunlap K, Chak G, Aquavella JV, et al., Short-term visual outcomes of Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation, Ophthalmology, 2010;117(4):687–92.
  4. Yaghouti F, Nouri M, Abad JC, et al., Keratoprosthesis: preoperative prognostic categories, Cornea, 1998;20(1):19–23.
  5. Ma JJ, Graney JM, Dohlman CH, Repeat penetrating keratoplasty versus the Boston keratoprosthesis in graft failure, Int Ophthalmol Clin, 2005;45(4):49–59.
  6. Chew HF, Ayres BD, Hammersmith KM, et al., Boston keratoprosthesis outcomes and complications, Cornea, 2009;28(9):989–96.
  7. Netland PA, Terada H, Dohlman CH, Glaucoma associated with keratoprosthesis, Ophthalmology, 1998;105:751–7.
  8. Zerbe BL, Belin MW, Ciolino JB, Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study Group, Results from the multicenter Boston type 1 Keratoprosthesis study, Ophthalmology, 2006;113:1779–84.
  9. Bradley JC, Hernandez EG, Scwab IR, Mannis MJ, Boston type 1 Keratoprosthesis: the university of california davis experience, Cornea, 2009;28:321–7.
  10. Greiner MA, Li JY, Mannis MJ, Longer-term vision outcomes and complications with the Boston type 1 Keratoprosthesis and the University of California, Davis, Ophthalmology, 2011;118:1543–50.
  11. Banitt M, Evaluation and management of glaucoma after keratoprosthesis, Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 2011;22:133–6.
  12. Akpek EK, Harissi-Dagher M, Petrarca R, et al., Outcomes of Boston Keratoprosthesis in aniridia: a retrospective multicenter study, Am J Ophthalmol, 2007;144(2):227–31.
  13. Khan BF, Harissi-Dagher M, Pavan-Langston D, et al., The Boston Keratoprosthesis in Herpetic Keratitis, Arch Ophthalmol, 2007;125:745–9.
  14. Sayegh RR, Ang LPK, Foster CS, Dohlman CH, The Boston Keratoprosthesis in Stevens-Johnson syndrome, Am J Ophthalmol, 2008;145:438–44.
  15. Cade F, Grosskreutz CL, Tauber A, Dohlman CH, Glaucoma in eyes with severe chemical burn, before and after keratoprosthesis, Cornea, 2011;30(12):1322–7.
  16. Harissi-Dagher M, Dohlman CH, The Boston Keratoprosthesis in severe ocular trauma, Can J Ophthalmol, 2008;43(2):165–9.
  17. Ilhan-Serac O, Akpek EK, Current concepts and techniques in keratoprosthesis, Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 2005;16:246–50.
  18. Talajic JC, Agoumi Y, Gagné S, et al., Prevalence, progression, and impact of glaucoma on vision after Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis surgery, Am J Ophthalmol, 2012;153(2):267–74.
  19. Stacy RC, Jakobiec FA, Michaud NA, et al., Characterization of retrokeratoprosthetic membranes in the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis, Arch Ophthalmol, 2011;129(3):310–6.
  20. Yaghouti F, Dohlman CH, Innovations in Keratoprosthesis: proved and unproved, Int Ophthalmol Clin, 1999;39(1):27–36.
  21. Todani A, Behlau I, Faya M, et al., Intraocular pressure measurement by radio wave telemetry, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2011;52(13):9573–80. Print 2011.
  22. Sayegh RR, Avena DL, Vargas-Martin F, et al., Optical functional properties of the Boston Keratoprosthesis, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2010;51:857–63.
  23. Spitzer S, Belin MW, Paper presented at: World Cornea Congress, April 2005, Washington, DC.
  24. Garcia JPS, de la Cruz J, Rosen RB, Buxton DF, Imaging implanted keratoprostheses with anterior-segment optical coherence tomography and ultrasound biomicroscopy, Cornea, 2008:27(2):180–8.
  25. Pujari S, Siddique S, Dohlman CH, Chodosh J, The Boston Keratoprosthesis type II: the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary experience, Cornea, 2011;30(12):1298–303.
  26. Aldave AJ, Kamal KM, Vo RC, Yu F, The Boston type 1 Keratoprosthesis: improving outcomes and expanding indications, Ophthalmology, 2009;116:640–51.
  27. Rubin PAD, Chang E, Bernardino CR, et al., Oculoplastic technique of connecting a glaucoma valve shunt to extraorbital locations in cases of severe glaucoma, Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg, 2004;20(5):362–7.
  28. Aquavella JV, Gearinger MD, Akpek EK, McCormick GJ, Pediatric keratoprosthesis, Ophthalmology, 2007;114:989–94.
  29. Rivier D, Paula JS, Kim E, et al., Glaucoma and keratrosthesis surgery: the role of adjunctive cyclophotocoagulation, J Glaucoma, 2009;18:321–4.
  30. Dohlman CH, Grosskreutz CL, Chen TC, et al., Shunts to divert aqueous humor to distant epithelialized cavities after Keratoprosthesis surgery, J Glaucoma, 2010;19:111–5.
  31. Vajaranant TS, Blair MP, McMahon T, et al., Special considerations for pars plana tube shunt placement in Boston type 1 Keratoprosthesis, Arch Ophthalmol, 2010;128(11):1480–2.
  32. Li JY, Greiner MA, Brandt JD, et al., Long-term complications associated with glaucoma drainage devices and Boston keratoprosthesis, Am J Ophthalmol, 2011;152:209–18.

Further Resources

Share this Article
Related Content In Glaucoma
  • Copied to clipboard!
    accredited arrow-downarrow_leftarrow-right-bluearrow-right-dark-bluearrow-right-greenarrow-right-greyarrow-right-orangearrow-right-whitearrow-right-bluearrow-up-orangeavatarcalendarchevron-down consultant-pathologist-nurseconsultant-pathologistcrosscrossdownloademailexclaimationfeedbackfiltergraph-arrowinterviewslinkmdt_iconmenumore_dots nurse-consultantpadlock patient-advocate-pathologistpatient-consultantpatientperson pharmacist-nurseplay_buttonplay-colour-tmcplay-colourAsset 1podcastprinter scenerysearch share single-doctor social_facebooksocial_googleplussocial_instagramsocial_linkedin_altsocial_linkedin_altsocial_pinterestlogo-twitter-glyph-32social_youtubeshape-star (1)tick-bluetick-orangetick-whiteticktimetranscriptup-arrowwebinar Department Location NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-07NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-08NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-09NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-10NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-11NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-12Salary £ TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-01TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-02TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-03TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-04TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-05TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-06TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-07TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-08TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-09TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-10TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-11TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-12TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-13TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-14TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-15TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-16TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-17TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-18TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-19TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-20TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-21TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-22TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-23TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-24TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-25TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-26TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-27TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-28TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-29TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-30TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-31TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-32TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-33TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-34TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-35TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-36TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-37TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-38TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-39TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-40TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-41TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-42TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-43TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-44TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-45TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-46TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-47TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-48TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-49TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-50TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-51TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-52TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-53TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-54TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-55TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-56TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-57TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-58TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-59TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-60TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-61TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-62TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-63TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-64TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-65TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-66TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-67TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-68TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-69TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-70TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-71TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-72