Mid-term prognosis of type I Boston keratoprosthesis reimplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine the mid-term visual and anatomical prognosis of patients who require reimplantation of a second Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 (B-KPro). METHODS: Retrospective observational case series of 122 patients (141 eyes) who received a B-KPro at a single institution were reviewed. Eyes that underwent a second B-KPro were included in the study. Primary endpoints were B-KPro retention, final visual acuity 20/200 and loss of light perception. Secondary endpoints included the occurrence of postoperative complications. RESULTS: Seventeen eyes (12%) required a B-KPro reimplantation. Corneal melt was the most common indication for replacement (88%). Mean follow-up time after the second B-KPro was 4.4±2.1 years. The Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated the second B-KPro retention rate at 79% over 8 years. Retroprosthetic membrane (RPM, 53%) was the most common complication. Forty-one per cent of the eyes suffered from corneal melt following their second B-KPro. One year after the second B-KPro, 47% of the patients retained a vision 20/200. Seven eyes (41.2%) lost light perception, which was secondary to an inoperable retinal detachment in five cases. Four eyes (24%) developed phthisis following inoperable retinal detachment (n=3) or endophthalmitis (n=1). CONCLUSION: KPro reimplantation is a potentially sight- and globe-saving procedure for eyes with B-KPro failure, but the prognosis is guarded. B-KPro reimplantation can salvage ambulatory vision in a third of patients while another third of patients progress to loss of light perception. RPM and retinal detachment were important obstacles to visual rehabilitation while recurrent corneal melt was responsible for most cases of anatomical failure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".