Keratoprostheses in End-Stage Ocular Surface Diseases: Comparative Review of Current Concepts and Clinical Outcomes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/JEHS.2026.93.72687Keywords
Dry Eye Disease, Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency, Polymethyl Methacrylate, Corneal InjuryAbstract
Introduction and Purpose
Keratoprostheses remain a treatment of last resort for patients with severe corneal blindness and end-stage ocular surface disease when conventional therapeutic options, including corneal transplantation and limbal epithelial stem cell transplantation are ineffective or contraindicated. This review summarizes currently available keratoprostheses models according to the tear status of the ocular surface and compares their clinical outcomes, retention rates, complications, and surgical technique.
The State of Knowledge
Boston keratoprosthesis type I remains the most commonly used device for eyes with a wet-ocular surface, demonstrating favorable retention rate and visual rehabilitation. In contrast, Boston keratoprosthesis type II and modified osteo-odonto keratoprosthesis are primarily indicated in severe dry eye disease and cicatrizing ocular surface disorders. Novel devices, including Lucia keratoprosthesis, CorNeat keratoprosthesis, Moscow eye microsurgery complex in Russia, Lux keratoprosthesis and Pintucci keratoprosthesis aim to improve affordability, biointegration, and long-term retention.
Conclusions
Despite ongoing advances in device design and surgical techniques, complications such as glaucoma, retroprosthetic membrane formation and extrusion remain significant challenges. Further long-term studies using standardized outcome measures are required to determine the optimal keratoprosthesis for specific clinical indications.
References
1. Moussa S, Reitsamer H, Ruckhofer J, Grabner G. The ocular surface and how it can influence the outcomes of keratoprosthesis. Curr Ophthalmol Rep. 2016;4(4):220-225. doi:10.1007/s40135-016-0116-x
2. Avadhanam VS, Smith HE, Liu C. Keratoprostheses for corneal blindness: A review of contemporary devices. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:697-720. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S27083
3. Deng SX, Kruse F, Gomes JAP, et al; International Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency Working Group. Global consensus on the management of limbal stem cell deficiency. Cornea. 2020;39(10):1291-1302. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000002358
4. Ortiz-Morales G, Basu S, Cortina MS, et al. The role of the Boston keratoprosthesis in severe ocular surface disease and autoimmune diseases. Semin Ophthalmol. Published online January 19, 2026:1-16. doi:10.1080/08820538.2026.2614749
5. Holland G, Pandit A, Sánchez-Abella L, et al. Artificial cornea: Past, current, and future directions. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:770780. doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.770780
6. Uram E, Bogacz R, Gaik M, et al. A focus on Sjögren’s dry eye disease: Pathogenesis, patient management, and new advancements in therapy. J Educ Health Sport. 2023;37(1):128-139. doi:10.12775/JEHS.2023.37.01.010
7. Basu S, Serna-Ojeda JC, Senthil S, et al. The Aurolab keratoprosthesis (KPro) versus the Boston type I KPro: 5-year clinical outcomes in 134 cases of bilateral corneal blindness. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;205:175-183. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2019.03.016
8. Bahar I, Reitblat O, Livny E, Litvin G. The first-in-human implantation of the CorNeat keratoprosthesis. Eye (Lond). 2023;37(7):1331-1335. doi:10.1038/s41433-022-02105-3
9. Hicks CR, Crawford GJ, Dart JKG, et al. AlphaCor: Clinical outcomes. Cornea. 2006;25(9):1034-1042. doi:10.1097/01.ico.0000229982.23334.6b
10. Jirásková N, Rozsíval P, Burova M, Kalfertova M. AlphaCor artificial cornea: Clinical outcome. Eye (Lond). 2011;25(9):1138-1146. doi:10.1038/eye.2011.122
11. Bakshi SK, Paschalis EI, Graney J, Chodosh J. Lucia and beyond: Development of an affordable keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2019;38(4):492-497. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000001880
12. Rahmani S, Karimian F, Hassanpour K, et al. Clinical outcomes of stage 2 (pivotal) use of a modified keratoprosthesis device (ORC-KPro) in patients with end-stage corneal blindness. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2024;19(3):297-305. doi:10.18502/jovr.v19i3.13307
13. Sharma S, Donthineni PR, Iyer G, et al. Keratoprosthesis in dry eye disease. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023;71(4):1154-1166. doi:10.4103/IJO.IJO_2817_22
14. Bakshi SK, Graney J, Paschalis EI, et al. Design and outcomes of a novel keratoprosthesis: Addressing unmet needs in end-stage cicatricial corneal blindness. Cornea. 2020;39(4):484-490. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000002207
15. Iyer G, Srinivasan B, Agarwal S, et al. Keratoprosthesis: Current global scenario and a broad Indian perspective. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2018;66(5):620-629. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_22_18
16. Basu S, Serna-Ojeda JC, Senthil S, et al. The Aurolab keratoprosthesis (KPro) versus the Boston type I KPro: 5-year clinical outcomes in 134 cases of bilateral corneal blindness. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;205:175-183. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2019.03.016
17. Nonpassopon M, Niparugs M, Cortina MS. Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis: Updated perspectives. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:1189-1200. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S219270
18. Todani A, Ciolino JB, Ament JD, et al. Titanium back plate for a PMMA keratoprosthesis: Clinical outcomes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249(10):1515-1518. doi:10.1007/s00417-011-1684-y
19. Ament JD, Spurr-Michaud SJ, Dohlman CH, Gipson IK. The Boston keratoprosthesis: Comparing corneal epithelial cell compatibility with titanium and PMMA. Cornea. 2009;28(7):808-811. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e31819670ac
20. Wróblewska-Czajka E, Dobrowolski D, Wylęgała A, Jurkunas UV, Wylęgała E. Outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis type I implantation in Poland: A retrospective study on 118 patients. J Clin Med. 2024;13(4):975. doi:10.3390/jcm13040975
21. Shanbhag SS, Senthil S, Mohamed A, Basu S. Outcomes of the Boston type 1 and the Aurolab keratoprosthesis in eyes with limbal stem cell deficiency. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105(4):473-478. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316369
22. Gu J, Zhang Y, Zhai J, et al. Clinical experience in patients with ocular burns treated with Boston type I keratoprosthesis implantation with or without prophylactic Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. Ophthalmol Ther. 2022;11(1):421-434. doi:10.1007/s40123-021-00446-y
23. Priddy J, Bardan AS, Tawfik HS, Liu C. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the medium- and long-term outcomes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2019;38(11):1465-1473. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000002098
24. Basu S, Serna-Ojeda JC, Senthil S, et al. The Aurolab keratoprosthesis (KPro) versus the Boston type I KPro: 5-year clinical outcomes in 134 cases of bilateral corneal blindness. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;205:175-183. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2019.03.016
25. Shanbhag SS, Senthil S, Mohamed A, Basu S. Outcomes of the Boston type 1 and the Aurolab keratoprosthesis in eyes with limbal stem cell deficiency. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105(4):473-478. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316369
26. Ortiz-Morales G, Vera-Duarte GR, Jimenez-Collado D, et al. Results of Lucia keratoprosthesis implantation in severe corneal disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2024;268:388-394. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2024.08.035
27. Thirunavukarasu AJ, Morales-Wong F, Halim NSHB, et al. Nanohydroxyapatite coating attenuates fibrotic and immune responses to promote keratoprosthesis biointegration in advanced ocular surface disorders. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2024;16(20):25892-25908. doi:10.1021/acsami.4c04077
28. Saini C, Chen TC, Young LH, et al. Restoration of vision in severe, cicatricial, ocular surface disease with the Boston keratoprosthesis type II. Am J Ophthalmol. 2022;243:42-54. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2022.06.022
29. Pujari S, Siddique SS, Dohlman CH, Chodosh J. The Boston keratoprosthesis type II: The Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary experience. Cornea. 2011;30(12):1298-1303. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e318215207c
30. Hille K, Grabner G, Liu C, et al. Standards for modified osteoodontokeratoprosthesis (OOKP) surgery according to Strampelli and Falcinelli: The Rome-Vienna protocol. Cornea. 2005;24(8):895-908. doi:10.1097/01.ico.0000157401.81408.62
31. Ortiz-Morales G, Loya-Garcia D, Colorado-Zavala MF, et al. The evolution of the modified osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis, its reliability, and long-term visual rehabilitation prognosis: An analytical review. Ocul Surf. 2022;24:129-144. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2022.03.005
32. Hille K. Long-term outcome of keratoprosthesis with biological support. Ophthalmologe. 2018;115(1):5-11. doi:10.1007/s00347-017-0503-1
33. Bakshi SK, Graney J, Paschalis EI, et al. Design and outcomes of a novel keratoprosthesis: Addressing unmet needs in end-stage cicatricial corneal blindness. Cornea. 2020;39(4):484-490. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000002207
34. Basu S, Nagpal R, Serna-Ojeda JC, Bhalekar S, Bagga B, Sangwan VS. LVP keratoprosthesis: Anatomical and functional outcomes in bilateral end-stage corneal blindness. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;103(8):1138-1142. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311649
35. Wang L, He X, Wang Q, et al. Long-term outcomes of the MICOF keratoprosthesis surgery. Ocul Surf. 2021;21:178-185. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2021.06.005
36. Pintucci S, Pintucci F, Cecconi M, Caiazza S. New Dacron tissue colonisable keratoprosthesis: Clinical experience. Br J Ophthalmol. 1995;79(9):825-829. doi:10.1136/bjo.79.9.825
37. Maskati QB, Maskati BT. Asian experience with the Pintucci keratoprosthesis. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2006;54(2):89-94. doi:10.4103/0301-4738.25828
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Maksymilian Bocheński, Oliwia Grygorczuk, Gabriela Luba

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The periodical offers access to content in the Open Access system under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 0
Number of citations: 0