July 2018
Volume 59, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2018
Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis versus a low-cost design, the Auro Keratoprosthesis.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Juan Carlos Serna-Ojeda
    Ophthalmology, Patronato Banco de Ojos y Tejidos de Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, Mexico
  • Virender Sangwan
    L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India
  • Sayan Basu
    L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Juan Carlos Serna-Ojeda, None; Virender Sangwan, None; Sayan Basu, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2018, Vol.59, 1572. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Juan Carlos Serna-Ojeda, Virender Sangwan, Sayan Basu; Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis versus a low-cost design, the Auro Keratoprosthesis.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):1572.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose : This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes in eyes implanted with either the Boston type I keratoprosthesis (Kpro) or the Auro Kpro in a large cohort of patients with bilateral corneal blindness.

Methods : Methods: This was retrospective comparative interventional case series. The medical records of a consecutive cohort of patients, undergoing Kpro implantation between 2009 and 2016 for bilateral corneal blindness were reviewed. The primary outcome measures were: a) anatomical outcome, defined as retention of the device without extrusion, explantation or exchange; and b) functional success, defined as the duration for which a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/200 or better was maintained. Secondary outcome measures were the rate of postoperative complications.

Results : Results: The study included 126 eyes of 121 patients; the Boston type I Kpro was implanted in 71 eyes and the Auro Kpro in 55 eyes. Both groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics (P>0.3). Chemical burns being the most common indication in both groups. Boston type 1 Kpro group had an overall longer follow-up of 36.7±29.3 months vs. 17.1±16.3 months for the Auro Kpro group although this was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The overall retention rate at 5-years was similar (64.8% vs. 61.82%, P=0.731) in both groups, but the log-rank test comparison of the Kaplan-Mier survival curves demonstrated that eyes with Boston type I Kpro significantly outperformed eyes with the Auro Kpro, in terms of anatomical retention at every postoperative time point (P=0.0222). At 5-years, 82.2% of eyes with a retained Boston type I Kpro maintained a BCVA of 20/200 or better as compared to 51.9% of eyes with retained Auro Kpros (P=0.0122). Although the rate of complications in both groups were comparable, the time to development of complications like retro-prosthetic membranes (RPM) and sterile ulceration, was significantly shorter in eyes with the Auro Kpros (P=0.0034).

Conclusions : Conclusions: Although with shorter survival expectancy for both device retention and visual acuity, the Auro Kpro device could be considered for patients with specific characteristics, like being from low and middle-income countries, one-eyed, and not able to afford a Boston type I Kpro.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.