Table 1.
Comparison of MOOKP and Boston KPro
| Feature | MOOKP (Modified Osteo-Odonto-Keratoprosthesis) | Boston KPro |
|---|---|---|
| Structure & Materials | Biological (dental lamina with dentin, bone, PMMA optical cylinder) | Biocompatible (PMMA, titanium in Type II) |
| Application | Extreme cases (SJS, chemical burns, autoimmune diseases) | Type I: Maintains a moist ocular environment; Type II: Designed for dry ocular surfaces |
| Surgical Procedure | Multi-stage (2–3 stages over months); requires autograft | Single-stage (mainly Type I), simpler and faster |
| Complications | Lamina resorption (14%), mucosal necrosis, glaucoma (11.5%), retinal detachment (10%) | Glaucoma (66%), retroprosthetic membrane formation (up to 17%), corneal melt (19%) (Wróblewska-Czajka et al. 2024) |
| Visual Outcomes | 78% of patients achieve ≥ 20/400; better long-term stability | Type I: 46.81% achieve ≥ 20/200 within 3 years (Wróblewska-Czajka et al. 2024); Type II: 50–58.6% after 5 years |
| Availability | 14 centers worldwide, requires a multidisciplinary team | More widely available, less infrastructure-dependent |
| Advantages | Higher tolerance for extreme ocular surface damage | Easier and faster to perform; more accessible |
| Disadvantages | More complex, higher risk of complications (Ortiz-Morales et al. 2022) | Shorter durability in harsh conditions, higher risk of retroprosthetic membranes |
The table summarizes the key differences between MOOKP and Boston KPro, indicating their applications, results, and limitations