gms | German Medical Science

102. Jahrestagung der DOG

Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft e. V.

23. bis 26.09.2004, Berlin

10 years of experience with keratoprostheses

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • corresponding author K. Hille - Augenklinik der Universitätskliniken des Saarlandes, Homburg (Saar)
  • K.W. Ruprecht - Augenklinik der Universitätskliniken des Saarlandes, Homburg (Saar)

Evidenzbasierte Medizin - Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. 102. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft. Berlin, 23.-26.09.2004. Düsseldorf, Köln: German Medical Science; 2004. Doc04dogFR.09.12

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at:

Published: September 22, 2004

© 2004 Hille et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.




In Patients with severe ocular surface disorders like severe dry eye, symblepharon or diffuse vaskularisation the results of ocular reconstruction by corneal grafts or limbal stem cell transplantation are limited. In those patients a keratoprosthesis (Kpro) may be suitable for the recovery of vision. A KPro usually consists of an optic cylinder and a haptic made of biocompatible or biologic material like tibiabone (TKpro) or dentine (OOKP) to retain the optic in the surface of the body. Due to our experience we wanted to grade the value of different KPro.


In the last 10 years we implanted 35 KPro, 29 with biologic haptic (25 OOKP and 4 TKPro), and 6 KPro with biocompatible haptic (1 LEGAIS's KPro, 5 PINTUCCI's KPro). There was a follow-up examination about every half a year.


The patients gained a visual acuity of ≥0,9 in 20,6%, of ≥0,5 in 52,9%, of ≥0,2 in 61,8% a significant improvement of the visual acuity in 76,5% respectively. There was no significant difference between the different types of KPros concerning the visual acuity, but all patients with a poor improvement had a pre-existing end stage glaucoma or other visual impairing pre-existing ocular diseases. The medium follow-up of OOKP was 3 years (max. 8) and of TKPro 1 year. In this time none of the KPro with biologic haptic was lost, but 3 of 6 of the KPro with biocompatible haptic with a maximum of follow-up of 2 years (1 LEGAIS's after 6 month and 2 of the PINTUCCI's; p<0,01).


Most important in ranking of KPro's different types are the percentage and duration of the anatomic success as visual acuity will be similar as long as a KPro is in site. The fixation of the KPro by a root of the patients own tooth (OOKP) will leed to the best results in the long-term follow-up as our results as well as the literature demonstrates.