The Boston Keratoprosthesis type 1 as primary penetrating corneal procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Penetrating keratoplasty (PK) has a poor prognosis in certain corneal eye diseases. The safety and efficacy of Boston type 1 Keratoprosthesis (KPro) surgery as a primary penetrating corneal surgery were evaluated for patients with corneal blindness and poor prognosis for PK. METHODS: In this retrospective interventional comparative study, all patients who underwent KPro implantation by a single surgeon between October 2008 and March 2011 at the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal were divided into two groups. Thirty patients with KPro as a primary procedure (group 1) were compared with 40 patients who had PK prior to KPro (group 2). A chart review examining preoperative and postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraoperative and postoperative complications and KPro retention rate over the first postoperative year was performed. RESULTS: Preoperative BCVA was 20/200 or better in 10% of eyes in group 1 (range 20/150 light perception (LP)), and in 5% of eyes in group 2 (range 20/100 LP; p=0.42). BCVA was significantly better in group 1 throughout the follow-up (p<0.05). At 12 months, 87% and 63% of eyes achieved a BCVA better than 20/200 in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p<0.05). The complication rates and retention rate were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the Boston KPro implantation may be successful as a primary procedure in patients at high risk of failure with traditional PK. Further, there appears to be a visual benefit to primary KPro surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".