Keratoprostheses: from the past to the future
https://doi.org/10.21516/2072-0076-2023-16-3-141-146
Abstract
The review outlines the models of keratoprostheses currently used in various countries and their effectiveness, conceptual models under development, prospects and trends in keratoprosthetics observed in the world.
About the Authors
M. V. Grishchenko
S.N. Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Clinic, Krasnodar Branch
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Maksim V. Grishchenko - ophthalmologist, surgical department № 1
6, Krasnykh Partizan St., Krasnodar, 350012
V. V. Myasnikova
S.N. Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Clinic, Krasnodar Branch; Kuban State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Viktoriya V. Myasnikova - Dr. of Med Sci., deputy director for research, associate professor of chair of anesthesiology, resuscitation and transfusiology
6, Krasnykh Partizan St., Krasnodar, 350012
4, Mitrofan Sedin St., Krasnodar, 350063
D. A. Nefedov
S.N. Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Clinic, Krasnodar Branch
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Denis A. Nefedov - Cand. of Med Sci., head of surgical department № 2
6, Krasnykh Partizan St., Krasnodar, 350012
References
1. Filatov V.P., Bushmich D.G. Development of categories of thorns for corneal transplantation. Ophthalmological journal. 1947; 2: 9-14 (In Russ.)
2. Moffatt SL, Cartwright VA, Stumpf TH. Centennial review of corneal transplantation. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;33:642–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2005.01134.x
3. Darwin EA. History of ophthalmology series. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008; 45:508–13. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9394(08)00351-6
4. Chirila TV, Hicks CR. The origins of the artificial cornea: Pellier de Quengsy and his contributions to the modern concept of keratoprosthesis. Gesnerus. 1999; 56:96–106. PMID: 10432778
5. De Quengsy GP. Des Herrn D. Pellier de Quengsy. Sammlung von Aufsätzen und Wahrnehmungensowohlüber die Fehler der Augen, als der Theile, die sieumgeben Junius. Leipzig: Junius.1789.
6. Nusbaum N. Cornea articialis, ein Substitut fur die Transplantation Cornea. Deutsche Klinik. 1853.
7. Fedorov S.N., Moroz Z.I., Zuev V.K. Keratoprosthetics. Moscow: Meditsina, 1982. (In Russ.).
8. Chirila TV, Constable J, Crawford GJ, et al. Poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) sponges as implant materials: in vivo and in vitro evaluation of cellular invasion. Biomaterials. 1993;14(1):26-38. doi: 10.1016/0142-9612(93)90072-a
9. Choyce DP. Perforating and non-perforating acrylic corneal implants, including the Choyce 2-piece perforating kerato-prosthesis. Ophthalmologica. 1969;158 Suppl:292-300. PMID: 5359727.
10. Choyse DP. Evolution of the Choyce 2-piece multistage perforating keratoprosthesis technique. 1967–1978. Ann Ophthalmol. 12: 740-3.
11. Cardona H. Hushroom transcorneal keratoprosthesis (bolt and nut). Am J Ophthalmol. 1969 Oct;68(4):604-12. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(69)91239-2
12. Aldave A.J., Malyugin B.E., Kovshun E.V., Vlasova V.A. The Boston Type I K-PRO implantation results in patients with burn and dystrophic leucoma of 4-5th stage. Fyodorov Journal of Ophthalmic Surgery.2013; 3:6-11. (In Russ.).
13. Moroz Z.I., Vlasova V.A., Kovshun E.V.. The history of keratoprosthetics in the academician S.N. Fyodorov ISTC NRMC «Eye Microsurgery». Ophthalmosurgery. 2013; 4: 50-5. (In Russ.).
14. Moroz Z.I. Achievements of S.N. Fedorov in the field of keratoplasty and keratoprosthetics. Ophthalmosurgery. 2007; 1: 22-5. (in Russ.).
15. Malyugin BE, Borzenok SA, Kovshun EV, et al. Morphological changes in rabbit cornea after implantation of a new keratoprosthesis supporting plate. Vestnik Oftal’mologii. 2020; 136(5):77 86. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/oftalma202013605177
16. Dohlman CH, Harissi-Dagher M, Graney J. The Boston keratoprosthesis: a new threadless design. Digit J Ophthalmol. 2007;13(3):1–5.
17. Shihadeh WA, Mohidat HM. Outcomes of the Boston keratoprosthesis in Jordan. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2012 Jan-Mar; 19(1): 97–100. doi:10.4103/0974-9233.92123
18. Sivaraman KR, Hou JH, Allemann N, de la Cruz J, Cortina MS. Retroprosthetic membrane and risk of sterile keratolysis in patients with type I Boston Keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013 May; 155(5):814-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2012.11.019
19. Liu C, Okera S, Tandon R, et al. Visual rehabilitation in end-stage inflammatory ocular surface disease with the osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis: results from the UK. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008; 92:1211–7. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2007.130567
20. De la Paz MF, Salvador-Culla B, Charoenrook V, et al. Osteo-odonto-, tibial bone and Boston keratoprosthesis in clinically comparable cases of chemical injury and autoimmune disease. Ocul Surf. 2019; 17:476–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2019.04.006
21. Tan A, Tan DT, Tan XW, Mehta JS. Osteo-odontokeratoprosthesis: systematic review of surgical outcomes and complication rates. Ocul Surf. 2012; 10:15–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2012.01.003
22. Hicks CR, Crawford GJ, Dart JKG. AlphaCor - Clinical outcomes. Cornea. 2006; 25(9): 1034 – 42. doi: 10.1097/01.ico.0000229982.23334.6b
23. Hicks CR, Crawford GJ, Lou X, et al. Corneal replacement using a synthetic hydrogel cornea, AlphaCor: device, preliminary outcomes and complications. Eye (Lond). 2003 Apr;17(3):385-92. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6700333
24. Hicks CR, Crawford GJ. Indications and technique: AlphaCor artificial cornea. Tech Ophthalmol. 2003; 1: 151–5. doi: 10.1097/00145756-200309000-00004
25. Jiraskova N, Rozsival P, Burova M, Kalfertova M. AlphaCor artificial cornea: clinical outcome. Eye (Lond). 2011; 25:1138–46. doi: 10.1038/eye.2011.122
26. Crawford GJ. The development and results of an artificial cornea: AlphaCor™. In: Chirila TV, Harkin DG, eds. Biomaterials and Regenerative Medicine in Ophthalmology. 2nd ed. Woodhead Publishing. 2016.
27. Hicks CR, Chirila TV, Werner L, et al. Deposits in artificial corneas: risk factors and prevention. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004; 32:185–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2004.00781.x
28. Litvin G, Klein I, Litvin Y, Klaiman G, Nyska A. CorNeat KPro: Ocular implantation study in rabbits. Cornea. 2021 Sep 1;40(9):1165-74. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002798
29. Legeais JM, Renard G, Pouliquen Y. Novel biocolonizable intrastromal keratoprosthesis. First year study in human. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993; 34 (Suppl): 1367-74.
30. Hollick EJ, Watson SL, Dart JK, Luthert PJ, Allan BD. Legeais BioKpro III keratoprosthesis implantation: long term results in seven patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006 Sep;90(9):1146-51. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2006.092510
31. Alió JL, Mulet ME, Haroun H, Merayo J, Ruiz Moreno JM. Five year follow up of biocolonisable microporous fluorocarbon haptic (BIOKOP) keratoprosthesis implantation in patients with high risk of corneal graft failure. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 Dec;88(12):1585-9. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2004.046375
32. Xiang J, Sun J, Hong J, et al. T-style keratoprosthesis based on surface-modified poly (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) hydrogel for cornea. MaterSciEngCMaterBiolAppl. 2015; 50: 274–85. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.01.089
33. Sharifi S, Islam MM, Sharifi H, et al. Sputter deposition of titanium on poly(methyl methacrylate) enhances corneal biocompatibility. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020; 9:41. doi: 10.1167/tvst.9.13.41
34. Li L, Jiang H, Wang LQ, Huang YF. Experimental study on the biocompatibility of keratoprosthesis with improved titanium implant. Int J Ophthalmol. 2018; 11:1741–5. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2018.11.02
35. Liqiang W, Kyung JJ, Homer HC, et al. Hydroxyapatite for keratoprosthesis biointegration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Sep 22;52(10):7392-9. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-7601
36. Kalinnikov Yu.Yu. Modern approaches to solving the problems of keratoprosthetics. Refraktsionnaya khirurgia I oftal’mologia. 2004; 4(20): 54-62 (In Russ.).
37. Holland G, Pandit A, Sánchez-Abella L, et al. Artificial cornea: Past, current, and future directions. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Nov 12;8:770780. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.770780
38. Iyer G, Srinivasan B, Agarwal S. Keratoprosthesis: Current global scenario and a broad Indian perspective. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2018; 66(5): 620-9. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_22_18
39. Fernandez-Perez J, Ahearne M. Decellularisation and recellularisation of cornea: progress towards a donor alternative. Methods. 2020; 171:86–96. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2019.05.009
40. Rama P, Matuska S, Paganoni G, et al. Limbal stem-cell therapy and long-term corneal regeneration. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363:147–55. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0905955
41. Alio Del Barrio JL, El Zarif M, Azaar A, et al. Corneal stroma enhancement with decellularised stromal laminas with or without stem cell recellularisation for advanced keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018; 186:47–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.10.026
42. Chen Z, You J, Liu X, et al. Biomaterials for corneal bioengineering. Biomed Mater. 2018; 13:032002. doi: 10.1088/1748-605X/aa92d2
43. Griffith M., Poudel BK, Malhotra K, et al. Biosynthetic alternatives for corneal transplant surgery. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. (2020; ) 15:129–43. doi: 10.1080/17469899.2020.1754798
44. Mi S, Chen B, Wright B, Connon CJ. Plastic compression of a collagen gel forms a much improved scaffold for ocular surface tissue engineering over conventional collagen gels. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010; 95:447–53. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.32861
45. Isaacson A, Swioklo S, Connon CJ. 3D bioprinting of a corneal stroma equivalent. Exp Eye Res. 2018; 173:188–93. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2018.05.010
46. Ulag S, Ilhan E, Sahin A, et al. 3D printed artificial cornea for corneal stromal transplantation. EurPolymer J. 2020; 133:109744. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2020.109744
47. Malyugin B.E., Borzenok S.A., Komakh U.A., et al. Modern possibilities of cellular technologies in designing the biological equivalent of an artificial cornea. Siberian scientific medical journal. 2014; 34(5): 43-7. (in Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Grishchenko M.V., Myasnikova V.V., Nefedov D.A. Keratoprostheses: from the past to the future. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2023;16(3):141-146. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21516/2072-0076-2023-16-3-141-146
Views:
363
Email this article 