Legeais BioKpro III keratoprosthesis implantation: long term results in seven patients.

AIMS: The long term results of the Legeais BioKpro III keratoprosthesis are presented for seven patients with severe corneal scarring. METHODS: The study took place at Moorfields Eye Hospital, London. Patients had either end stage ocular surface disease or corneal opacification after multiple failed graft surgery, with the potential for significant visual improvement. After insertion the device was covered with a conjunctival flap or buccal mucous membrane graft, which was later opened to expose the optic. The outcome measures were vision, complications, and retention of the device. RESULTS: The BioKpro III was inserted into seven patients with severe corneal scarring: ocular cicatricial pemphigoid, measles keratitis, thermal injury, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, aniridia, chemical injury, and congenital rubella. The follow up was 18-48 months. The keratoprosthesis failed in six, because of extrusion occurring 2-28 months postoperatively. Retroprosthetic membranes occurred in three patients, and endophthalmitis in one. Vision improved from hand movements to 6/12 in the only patient who retained the KPro; however he was troubled by mucus accumulation on the optic. CONCLUSIONS: The one success has been in a patient with thermal burns. The remaining results have been poor, with the KPro extruding in six of the seven patients.

Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia.

BACKGROUND: Myopia (also known as short-sightedness or near-sightedness) is an ocular condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than is required, resulting in light from distant objects being focused in front of the retina instead of directly on it. The two most commonly used surgical techniques to permanently correct myopia are photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of PRK and LASIK for correction of myopia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2005), EMBASE (1980 to September 2005) and LILACs (1982 to 3 November 2005). We also searched the reference lists of the studies and the Science Citation Index. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing PRK and LASIK for correction of any degree of myopia. We also included data on adverse events from prospective multicentre consecutive case series in the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) trials database (http//www.fda.gov/cdrh/LASIK/lasers.htm). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were summarised using odds ratio and mean difference. Odds ratios were combined using a random-effects model after testing for heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: This review included six randomised controlled trials involving a total of 417 eyes, of which 201 were treated with PRK and 216 with LASIK. We found that although LASIK gives a faster visual recovery than PRK, the effectiveness of these two procedures is comparable. We found some evidence that LASIK may be less likely than PRK to result in loss of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LASIK gives a faster visual recovery than PRK but the effectiveness of these two procedures is comparable. Further trials using contemporary techniques are required to determine whether LASIK and PRK are equally safe.

Hydroxyapatite promotes superior keratocyte adhesion and proliferation in comparison with current keratoprosthesis skirt materials.

AIM: Published clinical series suggest the osteoodontokeratoprosthesis (OOKP) may have a lower extrusion rate than current synthetic keratoprostheses. The OOKP is anchored in the eye wall by autologous tooth. The authors' aim was to compare adhesion, proliferation, and morphology for telomerase transformed keratocytes seeded on calcium hydroxyapatite (the principal mineral constituent of tooth) and materials used in the anchoring elements of commercially available synthetic keratoprostheses. METHODS: Test materials were hydroxyapatite, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyhydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), and glass (control). Cell adhesion and viability were quantified at 4 hours, 24 hours, and 1 week using a calcein-AM/EthD-1 viability/cytotoxicity assay. Focal contact expression and cytoskeletal organisation were studied at 24 hours by confocal microscopy with immunoflourescent labelling. Further studies of cell morphology were performed using light and scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: Live cell counts were significantly greater on hydroxyapatite surfaces at each time point (p<0.04). Dead cell counts were significantly higher for PTFE at 7 days (p<0.002). ss(1) integrin expression was highest on hydroxyapatite. Adhesion structures were well expressed in flat, spread out keratocytes on both HA and glass. Keratocytes tended to be thinner and spindle shaped on PTFE. The relatively few keratocytes visible on HEMA test surfaces were rounded and poorly adherent. CONCLUSIONS: Keratocyte adhesion, spreading, and viability on hydroxyapatite test surfaces is superior to that seen on PTFE and HEMA. Improving the initial cell adhesion environment in the skirt element of keratoprostheses may enhance tissue integration and reduce device failure rates.