Boston Keratoprosthesis Outcomes and Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of the Boston Keratoprosthesis (KPro) at our institution. METHODS: A computerized database retrospectively identified all patients who received a Boston KPro from August 2005 to October 2007. RESULTS: There were 37 patients, 24 (65%) were male. Mean age was 66.3 years (median 69 years, range: 24-93 years; SD = 18.1 years). Mean follow-up was 16 months (range: 6-28 months; SD = 6.0 months). There were 36 type 1 (97%) and 1 type 2 (3%) KPros. The primary indication was failed penetrating keratoplasty in 29 patients (78%)-22 (59%) from multiple failures. Preoperative comorbidities included glaucoma [27 patients (73%)] and limbal stem cell deficiency [13 patients (35%)]. No intraoperative complications occurred. Postoperative complications included retroprosthetic membrane [24 patients (65%)], increased intraocular pressure [14 patients (38%)], glaucoma progression [5 patients (13.5%)], and endophthalmitis [4 patients (11%)-3 who discontinued prophylactic antibiotics secondary to compliance]. Thirty-six KPros (97%) were retained-1 type 2 KPro (3%) in a patient with ocular cicatricial pemphigoid extruded and was replaced. Mean best-corrected visual acuities were counting fingers preoperatively (range: light perception to 20/100) and 20/90 at last follow-up (range: light perception to 20/25). At last follow-up, 31 patients (84%) improved 2 lines or greater-3 patients (8%) had worse vision. CONCLUSIONS: Retention rates were excellent, and best-corrected visual acuities improved in the vast majority of patients. Complications can occur and require frequent follow-up to monitor and treat glaucoma progression, endophthalmitis, and inflammation. Patient compliance is of paramount importance. Despite the potential complications, the Boston KPro provides visual improvement in patients with an otherwise poor prognosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".