What Can We Learn About MOOKP that We Can Apply to Future Prosthetic Devices?

Purpose of Review: The purpose of this study is to explain the different types of keratoprosthesis depending on the material; biological or nonbiological, and in the mode of fixation; transcorneal, intracorneal, or epi-corneal fixation; to define the general indications depending on the characteristics of the ocular surface; if it is a wet blinking eye or a dry nonblinking eye; to report our experience with different kinds of keratoprosthesis defining the retention of the prosthesis as the gage of success; and to define the ideal keratoprosthesis for us. Recent Findings: We have learned that several factors significantly affect anatomical retention and we were able to demonstrate this in two papers about our long-term experience on the biological keratoprosthesis OOKP and Tibia KPro. Based on this publication, we have about 258 patients with a biological keratoprosthesis with a mean follow-up time of 7.2 years, and about 117 cases with the Boston KPro Type I with a mean follow-up time of 3.1 years. Summary: Comparison of artificial corneas is not that easy since indications are different, surgeon experiences are presented in different manners, especially when we talk about visual acuity results. Perhaps the simplest and most logical way of comparing artificial corneas is looking into results of anatomical retention thru time, and evaluating the different complications that we may encounter in each kind in the post-operative period. We finally define our ideal keratoprosthesis depending if it is for a wet blinking eye or for a dry nonblinking eye. © 2016, Springer Science + Business Media New York.