International journal of ophthalmology · 2020
Comparative 2-year outcomes of conventional and accelerated corneal collagen crosslinking in progressive 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.
Uçakhan Ömür Ö, Yeşiltaş Yağmur Seda
Аннотация
AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of conventional versus accelerated (9 mW/cm2) corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) in progressive keratoconus at the 2-year follow-up.
METHODS: In this prospective study, consecutive progressive keratoconus patients were randomized to receive either conventional CXL (CCXL) or accelerated CXL (ACXL; using hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-assisted riboflavin imbibition for 10min at 9 mW/cm2). Visual, refractive, keratometric, topographic, and aberrometric outcomes and stromal demarcation line depth (DLD) measurements were compared at the end of a 2-year follow-up.
RESULTS: Thirty-two eyes from 32 patients in the CCXL and 27 eyes from 27 patients in the ACXL groups completed 2-year follow-up. At 2y post-CXL, both uncorrected and corrected visual acuities improved significantly in both groups. The improvements in keratometric readings, flattening rate (flattening of the maximum keratometry more than 1 D), 3 topographic indices, and vertical coma were significantly better in the CCXL group compared to the ACXL group (P<0.05). The DLD as measured by anterior segment optical coherence tomography or in vivo confocal microscopy was better detectable and significantly deeper in the CCXL group compared to the ACXL group. The deeper DLD was found to be significantly correlated with improvements in the mean keratometry measurements. Progression was noted in 11.1% of eyes in the ACXL group, whereas progression was not observed in any patient eye in the CCXL group.
CONCLUSION: In this prospective randomized study, ACXL is less effective in halting the progression of keratoconus at a 2-year follow-up compared to CCXL.
METHODS: In this prospective study, consecutive progressive keratoconus patients were randomized to receive either conventional CXL (CCXL) or accelerated CXL (ACXL; using hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-assisted riboflavin imbibition for 10min at 9 mW/cm2). Visual, refractive, keratometric, topographic, and aberrometric outcomes and stromal demarcation line depth (DLD) measurements were compared at the end of a 2-year follow-up.
RESULTS: Thirty-two eyes from 32 patients in the CCXL and 27 eyes from 27 patients in the ACXL groups completed 2-year follow-up. At 2y post-CXL, both uncorrected and corrected visual acuities improved significantly in both groups. The improvements in keratometric readings, flattening rate (flattening of the maximum keratometry more than 1 D), 3 topographic indices, and vertical coma were significantly better in the CCXL group compared to the ACXL group (P<0.05). The DLD as measured by anterior segment optical coherence tomography or in vivo confocal microscopy was better detectable and significantly deeper in the CCXL group compared to the ACXL group. The deeper DLD was found to be significantly correlated with improvements in the mean keratometry measurements. Progression was noted in 11.1% of eyes in the ACXL group, whereas progression was not observed in any patient eye in the CCXL group.
CONCLUSION: In this prospective randomized study, ACXL is less effective in halting the progression of keratoconus at a 2-year follow-up compared to CCXL.