The Risk of Retinal Detachment Following Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1 Implantation: Insights From a Retrospective Case Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the incidence, risk factors, management strategies, and visual outcomes of retinal detachment (RD) following Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1 (KPro) implantation. DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective observational case series. METHODS: Medical records of 157 eyes from 122 adult patients who underwent Boston Type 1 KPro implantation at a tertiary care center between 2008 and 2022 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria included age ≥18 years and postoperative follow-up of at least 1 year. Demographic data, preoperative characteristics, postoperative complications, and visual outcomes were collected. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to identify significant risk factors for RD. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used to evaluate time-to-event data. RESULTS: Of the 157 eyes that underwent Boston Type 1 KPro implantation, 27 eyes (17.2%) developed retinal detachment (RD), all within 8 years postoperatively (2 RD per 100 eye years). Aniridia was significantly associated with increased RD risk (OR: 2.79; 95% CI: 1.23-6.70), while other preoperative diagnoses were not. Eyes with RD were more likely to experience hypotony (OR: 7.63; P < .0001), choroidal detachment (OR: 7.67; P < .0001), phthisis (OR: 7.69; P < .0001), and other serious complications. Surgical intervention was possible in 16 of the 27 RD cases, with pneumatic retinopexy being the most common approach. CONCLUSIONS: Retinal detachment is a significant complication following KPro implantation, particularly in patients with aniridia. Postoperative hypotony and other inflammatory complications may contribute to increased RD risk and challenge surgical repair. Close monitoring of high-risk patients may help mitigate long-term visual morbidity.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".