Fyodorov–Zuev keratoprosthesis implantation: long-term results in patients with multiple failed corneal grafts

Ghaffariyeh, Alireza; Honarpisheh, Nazafarin; Karkhaneh, Akbar; Abudi, Reza; Мороз, З. И.; Peyman, Alireza; Faramarzi, Ali; Abasov, Fuad

doi:10.1007/s00417-010-1493-8

Cited by 26 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patients with keratoprosthesis may develop vitreal opacities or a sterile vitritis during the lifetime of their implant. Vitreal opacities were documented in cases of the more common Boston keratoprosthesis (K-pro) [ 7 , 8 ], but are also described in eyes with a Fyodorov-Zuev keratoprosthesis, with cases of endophthalmitis and growth of a granulation tissue [ 9 ]. The development of a retroprosthetic membrane, which grows on the posterior surface of the optical cylinder of the implant, is another documented side effect of keratoprosthesis procedures, leading to a decreased visual acuity [ 9 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visually Evoked Potentials in a Patient with a Fyodorov-Zuev Keratoprosthesis

Schwartz

Barak

Newman

2015

Case Rep Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To describe a visually evoked potential (VEP) examination performed on a patient with a keratoprosthesis. Methods: We report the case of a 60-year-old patient with a Fyodorov-Zuev keratoprosthesis in the right eye complained of gradual visual deterioration in that eye. His past medical history consisted of failed corneal graft procedures due to corneal dystrophy and an Ahmed valve implantation due to secondary glaucoma. A clinical examination and an ultrasound demonstrated vitreal opacities. In order to assess the visual status, a flash VEP test was conducted. Results: VEP recorded from the right eye consisted of a broadened and poorly formed positive P1 wave, with a subnormal amplitude, but a normal latency. Consequently, the patient underwent a pars plana vitrectomy. Conclusion: This case demonstrates the viability of VEP exams in patients with keratoprostheses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visually Evoked Potentials in a Patient with a Fyodorov-Zuev Keratoprosthesis

Schwartz

Barak

Newman

2015

Case Rep Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ghaffariyeh et al published a series of ten cases using this device with a follow-up ranging between 28 months and 84 months. 108 The device was retained only in seven cases. Its success was limited by complications like corneal necrosis around the central piece and poor integration leading to aqueous leaks, hypotony, and endophthalmitis.…”

Section: Kpros With Titanium Skirtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keratoprostheses for corneal blindness: a review of contemporary devices

Avadhanam¹,

Smith²,

Liu³

2015

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the World Health Organization, globally 4.9 million are blind due to corneal pathology. Corneal transplantation is successful and curative of the blindness for a majority of these cases. However, it is less successful in a number of diseases that produce corneal neovascularization, dry ocular surface and recurrent inflammation, or infections. A keratoprosthesis or KPro is the only alternative to restore vision when corneal graft is a doomed failure. Although a number of KPros have been proposed, only two devices, Boston type-1 KPro and osteo-odonto-KPro, have came to the fore. The former is totally synthetic and the latter is semi-biological in constitution. These two KPros have different surgical techniques and indications. Keratoprosthetic surgery is complex and should only be undertaken in specialized centers, where expertise, multidisciplinary teams, and resources are available. In this article, we briefly discuss some of the prominent historical KPros and contemporary devices.

show abstract

“…A multicentre study with a long-term follow-up may vindicate the success of this device. Ghaffariyeh46 published a series of 10 cases implanted with Fyodorov–Zuev KPro, which is similar in design to that of the above Ukranian device. In their series, only seven cases had retained the device over a follow-up range between 28 and 84 months.…”

Section: Keratoprostheses: Current Challenges and Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

A brief review of Boston type-1 and osteo-odonto keratoprostheses

Avadhanam

Liu

2014

Br J Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally there are ≈4.9 million bilaterally corneal blind and 23 million unilaterally corneal blind. Majority of this blindness exists in the developing countries, where resources for corneal banking and transplant surgery are less than adequate. Survival of corneal grafts gradually declines over the long term. Corneal transplantation has poor prognosis in vascularised corneal beds, ocular surface disease and viral keratitis. Keratoprosthesis (KPro) remains as a final option for end-stage ocular surface disease, multiple corneal transplant failures and high-risk corneal grafts. Boston type-1 KPro and osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis are the two devices proven useful in recent years. Choice of a keratoprosthetic device is patient specific based on the underlying diagnosis, ocular morbidity and patient suitability. KPro surgery demands a high level of clinical and surgical expertise, lifelong commitment and extensive resources. Improvements in techniques and biomaterials may in the future provide retainable KPros that do not need regular follow-up of patients, have low complications but high retention rates and may be produced at a low cost on a mass scale to be available as 'off the shelf' devices. Because KPros have the potential to effectively address the burden of surgically treatable corneal blindness and may also eliminate the problems of corneal transplantation, more research is required to develop KPros as substitutes for corneal transplantation even in low-risk cases. In those countries where corneal blindness is a major liability, we need a two pronged approach: one to develop eye donation, eye banking and corneal transplantation and the second to establish centres for keratoprostheses, which are affordable and technically not challenging, in a population where default on follow-up visits are high. Until the latter is achieved, KPros should be viewed as a temporary means for visual restoration and be offered in national and supraregional specialised centres only.

show abstract

Fyodorov–Zuev keratoprosthesis implantation: long-term results in patients with multiple failed corneal grafts

Abstract: Fyodorov-Zuev keratoprosthesis is an effective means of managing repeated corneal graft failure.

Cited by 26 publications

References 21 publications

Visually Evoked Potentials in a Patient with a Fyodorov-Zuev Keratoprosthesis

Visually Evoked Potentials in a Patient with a Fyodorov-Zuev Keratoprosthesis

Keratoprostheses for corneal blindness: a review of contemporary devices

A brief review of Boston type-1 and osteo-odonto keratoprostheses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About