Endophthalmitis in Eyes With the Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis: Incidence, Recurrence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the incidence and recurrence of Boston type I keratoprosthesis (KPro)-associated endophthalmitis, and its microbiological profile, risk factors, and outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 158 consecutive KPro procedures with a median follow-up of 78.4 months. Medical charts were reviewed for ocular history, contact lens and topical antibiotic use, visual acuity, and complications. For eyes with endophthalmitis, time to infection, culture results, and recurrences were collected. Cox regression analyses identified risk factors for endophthalmitis and compared the risk for visual failure, KPro retention, and globe loss between eyes with and without endophthalmitis. RESULTS: The incidence and recurrence rates of endophthalmitis were of 1.7% and 6.0% per procedure-year, respectively. First episodes occurred at a median of 18.6 months. Eight of 18 episodes (44%) were culture positive, isolating mainly Gram-positive bacteria (7 [88%]). Previous ocular burn (hazard ratio: 7.34, 95% confidence interval: 1.91-28.15), infectious keratitis (5.09, 1.70-15.22), corneal melt (4.55, 1.50-13.83), and postoperative contact lens wear (4.19, 1.17-15.04) were risk factors. Eyes with endophthalmitis did not have a higher risk for visual failure (1.74, 0.78-3.91) but were more likely to not retain the KPro (2.81, 1.15-6.88) and undergo evisceration (2.81, 1.15-6.88). All eyes lost ≥ 2 lines of vision during the endophthalmitis episode. CONCLUSIONS: Endophthalmitis is rare but vision and globe threatening in eyes with KPro. Given the increased associated risk, corneal melts and infectious keratitis must be promptly treated, postoperative contact lenses should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and patients with ocular burns might require more aggressive antimicrobial prophylaxis.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".