Differentiated Approach in Surgical Treatment of Retroprosthetic Membrane in Patients with Keratoprosthesis

Objective: To evaluate the results of a differentiated approach in surgical treatment of patients with retroprosthetic membrane (RPM) after keratoprosthesis implantation.

Patients and methods. The study enrolled 26 patients (26 eyes) aged from 32 to 64 years with retroprosthetic membrane after keratoprosthesis implantation. All patients underwent surgical treatment, including keratoprosthesis implantation and surgical removal of the retroprosthetic membrane during different treatment periods. The stage and extent of surgery were determined individually, according to the initial patient’s clinical and functional data, retroprosthetic membrane thickness and previous optical reconstructive operations.

Results. All patients had good clinical and functional results. Best corrected visual acuity in the first group was 0.35 ± 0.13, in the second group 0.20 ± 0,15, in the third group 0,15 ± 0,05.

Conclusion. Retroprosthetic membrane removal in patients with keratoprosthesis is a complex task with the risk of intra- and postoperative complications at all stages of the treatment. If retroprosthetic membrane is diagnosed in the long-term period after the second stage of keratoprosthesis implantation, ND:YAG-laser discision is preffered; if this technique can not be done or in case of recurrence, surgical excision of the retroprosthetic membrane through the optical cylinder aperture should be performed, but no more than two times. In case of high density of RPM, or RPM combined with severe form of capsular bag fibrosis, or RPM recurrence, microinvasive three-port pars plana vitrectomy with removal of RPM using a vitreotome is recommended.

1. Sharma S, Donthineni PR, Iyer G, Chodosh J, de la Paz MF, Maskati Q, Srinivasan B, Agarwal S, Basu S, Shanbhag SS. Keratoprosthesis in dry eye disease. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023 Apr;71(4):1154–1166. doi: 10.4103/IJO.IJO_2817_22.

2. Park J, Phrueksaudomchai P, Cortina MS. Retroprosthetic membrane: A complication of keratoprosthesis with broad consequences. Ocul Surf. 2020 Oct;18(4):893– 900. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2020.09.004.

3. Gao M, Sang W, Liu F, Yu H, Zhou R, Belin MW, Zloty P, Chen Y. High MMP‑9 Expression May Contribute to Retroprosthetic Membrane Formation after KPro Implantation in Rabbit Corneal Alkali Burn Model. J Ophthalmol. 2016;2016:1094279. doi: 10.1155/2016/1094279.

4. Gabriel BS, Robbins CB, Wisely CE, Gabriel RS, Daluvoy MB, Fekrat S. Incidence, risk factors, and treatment of retroprosthetic membranes following Boston keratoprosthesis eyes and the impact of glaucoma surgery. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2024 Aug;262(8):2561–2567. doi: 10.1007/s00417‑024‑06445‑6.

5. Khair D, Daoud R, Harissi‑Dagher M. Retroprosthetic Membrane Formation in Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1: Incidence, Predisposing Factors, Complications, and Treatment. Cornea. 2022 Jun 1;41(6):751–756. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002883.

6. Fu L, Hollick EJ. Artificial Cornea Transplantation. 2023 Apr 20. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–.

7. Fedorov SN, Moroz ZI, Zuev VK. Keratoprosthetics. Moscow: Meditsina, 1982. 144 p. (In Russ.).

8. Golovin AV, Sholokhova VR, Troshina AA. Sposob distsizii retroproteznoi membrany (varianty). Patent RU 2815869 22.03.2024 (In Russ.).

9. Borzenok SA, Vasil’ev AV, Shipunova AV, Dashinimaev EB, Moroz ZI, Komakh YuA, Kovshun EV. Tissue‑engineered design of a biokeratoprosthetic complex. Vestnik OGU. 2011; 14(133):75‑78. (In Russ.).

10. Aldawe E, Malyugin BE, Kovshun EV, Vlasova VA. Results of implantation of Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 in patients with burn and dystrophic leukomas of categories 4–5. Ophthalmosurgery. 2013;3:6–11 (In Russ.).

11. Makarov PV, Petrova AO, Chentsova EV, Oganesyan OG, Serov YuA, Lugovkina KV. A case of spontaneous non‑penetrating keratoprosthesis during multi‑stage implantation of the Fedorov‑Zuev prosthesis in a patient with severe chemical eye burn. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2021;14(2):59–62 (In Russ.).

12. Lee WB, Shtein RM, Kaufman SC, Deng SX, Rosenblatt MI. Boston Keratoprosthesis: Outcomes and Complications: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2015 Jul;122(7):1504–1511. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.03.025.

13. Rudnisky CJ, Belin MW, Todani A, Al‑Arfaj K, Ament JD, Zerbe BJ, Ciolino JB; Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study Group. Risk factors for the development of retroprosthetic membranes with Boston keratoprosthesis type 1: multicenter study results. Ophthalmology. 2012 May;119(5):951–955. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.11.030.

14. Lee R, Khoueir Z, Tsikata E, Chodosh J, Dohlman CH, Chen TC. Long‑term Visual Outcomes and Complications of Boston Keratoprosthesis Type II Implantation. Ophthalmology. 2017 Jan;124(1):27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.07.011.

15. Rishi P, Rishi E, Agarwal V, Nair S, Iyer G, Srinivasan B, Agarwal S. Vitreoretinal Complications and Outcomes in 92 Eyes Undergoing Surgery for Modified OsteoOdonto‑Keratoprosthesis: A 10‑Year Review. Ophthalmology. 2018 Jun;125(6):832– 841. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.12.003.

16. Charoenrook V, Michael R, de la Paz MF, Temprano J, Barraquer RI. Comparison of long‑term results between osteo‑odonto‑keratoprosthesis and tibial bone keratoprosthesis. Ocul Surf. 2018 Apr;16(2):259–264. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2018.02.003.

17. Jakobiec FA, Bhat P. Retrocorneal membranes: a comparative immunohistochemical analysis of keratocytic, endothelial, and epithelial origins. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010 Aug;150(2):230–242.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2010.03.011