Szemészet, 2019 (156. évfolyam, 1-4. szám)

2019-09-01 / 3. szám

Keratoprotézis-implantáció a klinikai gyakorlatban

2B. Kosker M, Suri

K,

Rapuano CJ, et al.

Long-Term Results of the Boston Keratoprosthesis for Unilateral Corneal Disease. Cornea 2015; 34(9): 1057-1062.

27. Aravena

C, Yu F, Aldave AJ. Long-Term Visual Outcomes, Complications, and Retention of the Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis. Cornea 2018; 37(1): 3-10.

28. Goins

KM,

Kitzmann AS,

Greiner MA, et al. Boston Type 1 keratoprosthesis: Visual outcomes, device retention, and complications. Cornea 2016; 35(9): 1165-1174.

29. Ciolino

JB, Belin MW, Todani A, et al. Retention of the Boston keratoprosthesis type 1: Multicenter study results. Ophthalmology 2013; 120(6): 1195-1200.

30. Duignan

ES,

Nídhubhghaill

S,

Malone C, et al. Long-term visual acuity, retention and complications observed with the type-l and type-ll Boston keratoprostheses in an Irish population. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2016; 100(8): 1093-1097.

31. Chan

CC, Loverde L, Qiang J, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and surgical management of boston type 1 keratoprothesis corneal melts, leaks, and extrusions. Cornea 2016; 35(8): 1049-1056.

32. Netland

PA, Terada H, Dohlman CH. Glaucoma associated with keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology 1998; 105(4): 751-757.

33. Estrovich

IE, Shen C, Chu

Y,

et al. Schiotz tonometry accurately measures intraocular pressure in Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis eyes. Cornea 2015; 34(6): 682-685.

34. Banitt

M. Evaluation and management of glaucoma after keratoprosthesis. Curt Opin Ophthalmol 2011; 22(2): 133-6.

35. Chak

G, Aquavella JV. A safe Nd:YAG retroprosthetic membrane removal technique for keratoprosthesis. Cornea 2010; 29(10): 1169-72.

36. Rudnisky

CJ, Belin MW, Todani A, et al. Risk factors for the development of retroprosthetic membranes with Boston keratoprosthesis type 1: Multicenter study results. Ophthalmology 2012; 119(5): 951-955.

37. Güeli

JL,

Arrondo E, Cortina MS, et al. Boston Keratoprosthesis Type I: Complications, in Keratoprostheses and Artificial Corneas: Fundamentals and Surgical Applications. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin;

2015. p.

169-179.

38. Sivaraman

KR, Hou JH, Allemann N, et al. Retroprosthetic membrane and risk of sterile keratolysis in patients with type I Boston Keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol 2013; 155(5): 814-22.

39. Chhablani

J, Panchai B, Das T, et al. Endophthalmitis in Boston keratoprosthesis: case series and review of literature. Int

Ophthalmol

2015; 35(5): 673-678.

40. Berrocal

A, Thomas B. Boston KPro Type I: Vitreoretinal Considerations, in Keratoprostheses and Artificial Corneas: Fundamentals and Surgical Applications, S.M. Cortina, J. de la Cruz, Editors. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin; 2015. p. 123-131.

41. Robert

MC,

Moussally

K, Harissi-Dagher M. Review of endophthalmitis following Boston keratoprosthesis type 1. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2012; 96(6): 776-780.

42. Odorcic

S, Haas W, Gilmore MS, et al. Fungal infections after boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation: Literature review and in vitro antifungal activity of hypochlorous acid. Cornea 2015; 34(12): 1599-1605.

43. Grassi

CM, Crnej A, Paschalis El, et al.: Idiopathic vitritis in the setting of Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea 2015; 34(2): 165-170.

44. Goldman

DR, Hubschman JP Aldave AJ, et al. Postoperative posterior segment complications in eyes treated with the Boston type I keratoprosthesis. Retina 2013; 33(3): 532-41.

45. Güeli

JL,

Arrondo E, Cortina MS. Boston KPro Type I: Complications, in Keratoprostheses and Artificial Corneas: Fundamentals and Surgical Applications, M.S. CortinaJ. de la Cruz, Editors. Springer Berlin-Heidelberg; 2015. p. 85-105.

46. Charoenrook

V, Michael R, de la Paz ME et al. Osteokeratoprosthesis Using Tibial Bone: Surgical Technique and Outcomes. Ocular Surface 2016; 14(4): 495-506.

47. Weisshuhn

K,

Berg I, Tinner D, et al. Osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP) and the testing of three different adhesives for bonding bovine teeth with optical poly-lmethyl methacrylate) (PMMA) cylinder. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2013.

48. Duncker

GIW, Storsberg J, Müller-Lierheim

WGK.

The fully synthetic, bio-coated MIRO- CORNEA UR keratoprosthesis: development, preclinical testing, and first clinical results. Spektrum

der Augenheilkunde 2015;

28(6): 250-260.

49. Hara

H, Cooper DK. Xenotransplantation—the future of corneal transplantation? Cornea 2011; 30(4): 371-8.

50. Kim

MK, Hara H. Current status of corneal xenotransplantation. Int

J

Surg 2015; 23(Pt B): 255-260.

51. Matthyssen

S, Van den Bogerd B, Dhubhghaill SN, et al. Corneal regeneration: A review of stromal replacements. Acta Biomater 2018; 69: 31-41.

52. Connon

CJ. Approaches to Corneal Tissue Engineering: Top-down or Bottom-up? Procedia Engineering 2015; 110: 15-20.

53. Zhu

Q, Zhu Y, Tighe S, et al. Engineering of Human Corneal Endothelial Cells In Vitro. Int

J

Med Sei

2019;

16(4): 507-512.

54. Isaacson

A, Swioklo S, Connon CJ. 3D bioprinting of a corneal stroma equivalent. Exp Eye Res 2018; 173: 188-193.

55. Zhang

B, Xue Q, Li J, et al. 30 bioprinting for artificial cornea: Challenges and perspectives. Med Eng Phys 2019.

Levelezési cím

Dr. László

Imre, Semmelweis Egyetem, Szemészeti Klinika, 1085 Budapest, Mária u. 39. E-mail: Iaszloimre1@upcmail.hu

■162;