Humanities
Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
  • Register
  • Login
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Announcements
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Submissions
    • Editorial Team
    • Privacy Statement
    • Contact
  • Register
  • Login

Journal of Education, Health and Sport

Keratoprostheses in End-Stage Ocular Surface Diseases: Comparative Review of Current Concepts and Clinical Outcomes
  • Home
  • /
  • Keratoprostheses in End-Stage Ocular Surface Diseases: Comparative Review of Current Concepts and Clinical Outcomes
  1. Home /
  2. Archives /
  3. Vol. 93 (2026) /
  4. Medical Sciences

Keratoprostheses in End-Stage Ocular Surface Diseases: Comparative Review of Current Concepts and Clinical Outcomes

Authors

  • Maksymilian Bocheński Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3616-3845
  • Oliwia Grygorczuk Military Institute of Medicine – National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3089-4546
  • Gabriela Luba National Medical Institute of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, Warsaw, Poland https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4262-2093

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12775/JEHS.2026.93.72687

Keywords

Dry Eye Disease, Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency, Polymethyl Methacrylate, Corneal Injury

Abstract

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

Journal of Education, Health and Sport

Downloads

  • PDF

Published

2026-06-23

How to Cite

1.
BOCHEŃSKI, Maksymilian, GRYGORCZUK, Oliwia and LUBA, Gabriela. Keratoprostheses in End-Stage Ocular Surface Diseases: Comparative Review of Current Concepts and Clinical Outcomes. Journal of Education, Health and Sport. Online. 23 June 2026. Vol. 93, p. 72687. [Accessed 23 June 2026]. DOI 10.12775/JEHS.2026.93.72687.
  • ISO 690
  • ACM
  • ACS
  • APA
  • ABNT
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Turabian
  • Vancouver
Download Citation
  • Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  • BibTeX

Issue

Vol. 93 (2026)

Section

Medical Sciences

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Maksymilian Bocheński, Oliwia Grygorczuk, Gabriela Luba

Creative Commons License

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

Search

Search

Browse

  • Browse Author Index
  • Issue archive

User

User

Current Issue

  • Atom logo
  • RSS2 logo
  • RSS1 logo

Information

  • For Readers
  • For Authors
  • For Librarians

Newsletter

Subscribe Unsubscribe

Tags

Search using one of provided tags:

Dry Eye Disease, Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency, Polymethyl Methacrylate, Corneal Injury
Up

Akademicka Platforma Czasopism

Najlepsze czasopisma naukowe i akademickie w jednym miejscu

apcz.umk.pl

Partners

  • Akademia Ignatianum w Krakowie
  • Akademickie Towarzystwo Andragogiczne
  • Fundacja Copernicus na rzecz Rozwoju Badań Naukowych
  • Instytut Historii im. Tadeusza Manteuffla Polskiej Akademii Nauk
  • Instytut Kultur Śródziemnomorskich i Orientalnych PAN
  • Instytut Tomistyczny
  • Karmelitański Instytut Duchowości w Krakowie
  • Ministerstwo Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego
  • Państwowa Akademia Nauk Stosowanych w Krośnie
  • Państwowa Akademia Nauk Stosowanych we Włocławku
  • Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa im. Stanisława Pigonia w Krośnie
  • Polska Fundacja Przemysłu Kosmicznego
  • Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne
  • Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze
  • Towarzystwo Miłośników Torunia
  • Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu
  • Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
  • Uniwersytet Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowie
  • Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika
  • Uniwersytet w Białymstoku
  • Uniwersytet Warszawski
  • Wojewódzka Biblioteka Publiczna - Książnica Kopernikańska
  • Wyższe Seminarium Duchowne w Pelplinie / Wydawnictwo Diecezjalne „Bernardinum" w Pelplinie

© 2021- Nicolaus Copernicus University Accessibility statement Shop