Infectious Keratitis After Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of infectious keratitis after Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (kpro) implantation. METHODS: Retrospective case series of kpro procedures at the Stein Eye Institute and the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal between May 1, 2004, and December 31, 2018. Data were collected regarding ocular history, operative details, postoperative management, microbiologic profile, treatment, and outcomes. Log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) were used to evaluate for an association between risk factors and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 349 kpro procedures were performed in 295 eyes of 268 patients. Fifty-seven cases of presumed infectious keratitis were identified after 53 procedures (15.2%) in 50 eyes (16.9%) of 49 patients (18.3%). The incidences of culture-positive bacterial and fungal keratitis were 0.014 and 0.004 per eye-year, respectively. Persistent corneal epithelial defect formation (P < 0.001) and cicatricial disease (HR: 1.98, 95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.83) were associated with a significantly higher incidence of infectious keratitis. For the 53 cases with a known outcome, medical therapy achieved resolution of infection in 34 cases (64.2%), whereas kpro explantation was required in 19 cases (35.8%). Infectious keratitis was associated with an increased risk for kpro explantation (HR: 3.09, 95% confidence interval, 1.92-4.79). CONCLUSIONS: Infectious keratitis develops in approximately 17% of eyes after kpro implantation, with a higher rate of culture-positive bacterial than fungal keratitis. The observed rate of microbial keratitis suggests the need for additional topical antimicrobial prophylaxis in eyes at higher risk, such as those with preexisting cicatricial disease or postoperative persistent corneal epithelial defect formation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".