Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society · 2022
Accelerated versus conventional corneal collagen crosslinking: Short-term clinical outcomes in stabilizing keratoconus.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aldairi Walaa, AlQahtani Reham, Alzaid Salem, Mousa Ahmed, Khandekar Rajiv, Al-Swailem Samar A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to compare the short-term outcomes of corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) using the conventional (Dresden) protocol and an accelerated CXL (ACXL) protocol to stop keratoconus (KC) progression.
METHODS: A chart review was performed for all the patients with KC who underwent CXL in the last 7 years. Data were compared at baseline and at all follow-up examinations for uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BCVA), keratometry (K), central corneal thickness, and complications of CXL. Pre- and post-intervention values were compared for each group. P < 0.05 was statistically significant.
RESULTS: After the treatment, there was a statistically greater improvement in UCVA in the conventional CXL (CCXL) group (49%) compared to the ACXL group (34%) (P = 0.028). The improvement in BCVA was similar between the groups (P = 0.060). Gain of two lines of UCVA and stability were comparable between groups (P = 0.078 and P = 0.060, respectively). The average flat K and steep K values fluctuated remarkably across different follow-up assessments in both the groups. At 3 months of follow-up, there was a statistically significantly faster return to baseline levels of flat and steep Ks in the CCXL group (P = 0.028 and P = 0.002, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The findings of the current study confirm the efficacy and safety of accelerated high-fluence CXL compared to CCXL. Both protocols were effective in stabilizing KC at 9th-month and the last follow-up visit. Larger prospective randomized controlled trials and longer follow-up are required to confirm our findings.
METHODS: A chart review was performed for all the patients with KC who underwent CXL in the last 7 years. Data were compared at baseline and at all follow-up examinations for uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BCVA), keratometry (K), central corneal thickness, and complications of CXL. Pre- and post-intervention values were compared for each group. P < 0.05 was statistically significant.
RESULTS: After the treatment, there was a statistically greater improvement in UCVA in the conventional CXL (CCXL) group (49%) compared to the ACXL group (34%) (P = 0.028). The improvement in BCVA was similar between the groups (P = 0.060). Gain of two lines of UCVA and stability were comparable between groups (P = 0.078 and P = 0.060, respectively). The average flat K and steep K values fluctuated remarkably across different follow-up assessments in both the groups. At 3 months of follow-up, there was a statistically significantly faster return to baseline levels of flat and steep Ks in the CCXL group (P = 0.028 and P = 0.002, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The findings of the current study confirm the efficacy and safety of accelerated high-fluence CXL compared to CCXL. Both protocols were effective in stabilizing KC at 9th-month and the last follow-up visit. Larger prospective randomized controlled trials and longer follow-up are required to confirm our findings.