Corneal Melt after Boston Keratoprosthesis: Clinical Presentation, Management, Outcomes and Risk Factor Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the presentation, risk factors, and outcomes of keratolysis after Boston type I keratoprosthesis (B-KPro). METHODS: Retrospective chart review. RESULTS: A total of 16 (14%) of the 110 eyes (96 patients) which underwent B-KPro implantation developed keratolysis at an average 20 ± 11 months. Retroprosthetic membrane (RPM), infectious keratitis, and corneal dellen were identified in 31%, 25%, and 13% of corneal melts, respectively. Five eyes had keratolysis without a readily identifiable cause. RPM (odds-ratio, OR = 4.4, p = 0.02) and infectious keratitis (OR = 17.6, p<0.0005) were confirmed as significant risk factors. Retinal detachment (p = 0.001) and choroidal detachment (p = 0.003) were more common in eyes with keratolysis. Management included B-KPro removal or exchange (n = 7), amniotic membrane transplantation (n = 1), tectonic corneal transplantation (n = 2), medical treatment (n = 4), and observation (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of keratolysis following B-Kpro increases with the development of RPM and infectious keratitis. Patients with keratolysis had higher complication rates and should receive rigorous monitoring.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".