Ophthalmology
Volume 118, Issue 1 , Pages 41-46, January 2011

Moscow Eye Microsurgery Complex in Russia Keratoprosthesis in Beijing

  • Yifei Huang, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Yifei Huang and Jifeng Yu contributed equally to this work.
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Yifei Huang, MD, PhD, Department of Ophthalmology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100853, China
  • ,
  • Jifeng Yu, MD

      Affiliations

    • Yifei Huang and Jifeng Yu contributed equally to this work.
  • ,
  • Li Liu
  • ,
  • Gaiping Du, MD
  • ,
  • Jing Song, MD
  • ,
  • Huiling Guo, MD

Department of Ophthalmology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China

Received 23 September 2009; received in revised form 1 May 2010; accepted 21 May 2010. published online 01 September 2010.

Available online: September 1, 2010.

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and preliminary safety of the Moscow Eye Microsurgery Complex in Russia (MICOF) keratoprosthesis in eyes with complicated corneal opacities unsuitable for keratoplasty.

Design

Retrospective review of consecutive clinical case series.

Participants

We analyzed 85 eyes of 85 patients who previously underwent MICOF keratoprosthesis implantation at the Chinese PLA General Hospital between April 1, 2000, and August 31, 2009. The mean follow-up after MICOF keratoprosthesis implantation (measured after the second stage of the implantation) was 34.7 months (range, 3–107 months).

Methods

The MICOF keratoprosthesis surgery involves 2 procedures. In stage 1, a supporting titanium frame is inserted into the lamellar pocket; a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) optical cylinder is implanted 3 months later (stage 2). Data were collected from the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative courses. Statistical analysis was performed to identify factors influencing postoperative complications.

Main Outcome Measures

Visual acuity (VA), keratoprosthesis retention, and significant postoperative complications.

Results

The MICOF keratoprosthesis dramatically improved vision in most patients. The percentage of eyes with postoperative VA of 20/100 or better was 80.7% (67/83) at 6 months after stage 2, 82.4% (61/74) at 1 year, 72.7% (40/55) at 2 years, 78.8% (26/33) at 3 years, 78.9% (15/19) at 4 years, 100% (8/8) at 5 years, 80% (4/5) at 6 years, 100% (2/2) at 7 and 8 years, and 100% (1/1) at 9 years. The most common complication, retroprosthetic membrane formation, occurred in 39 of 85 eyes. The overall keratoprosthesis retention rate was 81.2% at an average follow-up of 34.7 months (range, 3–107 months). Ten eyes presented with elevated intraocular pressure after implantation; 3 of these had underlying glaucoma. All 3 eyes received cyclocryotherapy to control intraocular pressure. Sterile vitreitis occurred in 2 eyes, and retinal detachment occurred in 1 eye.

Conclusions

The MICOF keratoprosthesis is an effective alternative for patients with corneal blindness and a poor prognosis for penetrating keratoplasty.

Financial Disclosure(s)

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Manuscript no. 2009-1321.

 Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

PII: S0161-6420(10)00561-0

doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.05.019

Ophthalmology
Volume 118, Issue 1 , Pages 41-46, January 2011