Retrospective cross-sectional study analyzes visual acuity changes in patients with corneal diseases, suggesting Boston keratoprosthesis is effective and safe.
Background and objective: The corneal diseases constituted the fourth leading cause of blindness in Iraq. Boston keratoprosthesis implanting is considered as effective surgical management of corneal diseases. The objective is to determine the visual outcome of Boston Type I keratoprosthesis in a tertiary eye center in Erbil city. Methods: Present study was a retrospective cross-sectional study carried out in Tertiary Eye center (North Eye center) in Erbil city-Kurdistan region/Iraq through the period of seven years from 1st of May 2017, to 30th of April 2023 on sample of 37 patients underwent Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis surgery. All the surgeries and postoperative evaluation were implemented by Dr. Didar S. Anwar. Patients examined by slitlamp device both pre and postoperatively, all the findings were recorded on patients’ sheet and the data were evaluated. Visual acuity was done by (Refractionist & optometrist). Results: The mean age of patients was (50.1 years) with predominance of male gender. Preoperative visual acuity was poor (non-useful) for all studied patients. Postoperative visual acuity of patients was distributed as followings; poor (non-useful) in 37.8% of patients, poor (useful) in 13.5% of patients, borderline in 24.3% of patients and good in 24.3% of patients. There was a highly significant difference in visual acuity between pre and postoperative Boston Type I keratoprosthesis (p<0.001), the visual acuity was significantly improved postoperatively. The postoperative complications were reported for 59.5% of patients; commonly retro prosthetic membrane. Conclusions: The Boston Type I keratoprosthesis implantation is effective and relatively safe surgery with a prominent improvement in visual acuity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khidher et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: