Longitudinal Follow Up Report Of Endothelial Keratoprosthesis Implantations In The Netherlands
Published 2025 - 43rd Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PO514 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/e6c1-m871
Authors: Antoine Pierre Brezin* 1 , Tristan Bourcier 2 , Corinne Dot 3 , Arthur Ferrero 4 , François Lignereux 5 , Pascal Rozot 6 , Hendy Abdoul 7
1Ophtalmologie,Universite Paris Cite - Hôpital Cochin,Paris,France, 2Ophtalmologie,CHRU Strasbourg,Strasbourg,France, 3Ophtalmologie,HIA Desgenettes,Lyon,France, 4Clinique de l'Union,Toulouse,France, 5Clinique Sourdille Atlantique,Nantes,France, 6Clinique Juge,Marseille,France, 7URC Paris Centre,Universite Paris Cite,Paris,France
Purpose
To report follow up data on the Dutch EndoArt cohort with up to 5.5 years results of implantation with the EndoArt (Eye Yon Medical, Israel) in terms of safety, device adherence, corneal thickness, central cornea clarity, adverse effects, and visual acuity.
Setting
Cornea service at the Ophthalmology department of an Academic Institution.
Methods
Consecutive interventional case series. The EndoArt is a corneal endothelial prosthesis constructed from a dome shaped acrylic implant of 6.5 mm diameter, intended for replacement of dysfunctional endothelium. The EndoArt prevents fluid uptake into the cornea by providing a physical barrier. The barrier allows for stromal dydration leading to a new equilibrium & decrease in corneal thickness. The EndoArt was implanted in 13 eyes of 13 patients for indications of corneal edema. In 9 out of 13 eyes the indication was tectonic, because of complex ocular pathology.
Results
Follow-up ranged from 2-60 months. In 12/13 eyes the EndoArt remained adherent . In 10/13 eyes a temporary corneal suture was used to aid initial adherence, which reduced rebubbling rates. No immediate perioperative or post operative complications occurred, especially not pathological thinning of the cornea was seen. In 1 eye a retinal detachment occurred at 44 months. In 10/13 visual acuity improved, even though this was not expected in the most complex eyes. Mean Central corneal thickness decreased from 879 microns to 656 microns. In 1 patient no effect was seen. In 1 patient the EndoArt failed to adhere. In 6 of 13 patients more than 1 suture was used, which lead to better and earlier adhesion of the EndoArt.
Conclusions
The EndoArt remained in situ in 11 patients in this cohort. In most patients’ corneal thickness and stromal edema was reduced. In 9 of 13 patients visual acuity improved. No complications related to the implant were seen.
Suturing the device led to decreased rebubble rates and improved adherence. Results with our patient cohort are encouraging and may help elucidate what the best indication area is for implantation. More follow up in more patients is needed to elucidate the
exact indications for the use of an artificial corneal endothelial device.