Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2020
Comparison of accelerated CXL alone, accelerated CXL-ICRS, and accelerated CXL-TG-PRK in progressive keratoconus and other corneal ectasias.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Singal Neera, Ong Tone Stephan, Stein Raymond, Bujak Matthew C, Chan Clara C, Chew Hall F, El-Defrawy Sherif, Jin Yaping, Kranemann Christoph, Rabinovitch Theodore, Rootman David S, Slomovic Allan R, Cohen Ashley, Dai David, Hatch Wendy
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare accelerated corneal crosslinking (CXL) alone, CXL with simultaneous intrastromal corneal ring segments (CXL-ICRS), and CXL with simultaneous topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy (CXL-TG-PRK) in progressive keratoconus, pellucid marginal degeneration (PMD), or laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK)-induced ectasia.
SETTING: The Kensington Eye Institute and Bochner Eye Institute, Toronto, Canada.
DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized interventional study.
METHODS: Visual and topographical outcomes using a comparative analysis adjusting for preoperative maximum keratometry (Kmax) were evaluated 1 year postoperatively.
RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-two eyes from 375 patients with progressive keratoconus, PMD, or LASIK-induced ectasia that underwent accelerated (9 mW/cm, 10 minutes) CXL alone (n = 204), CXL-ICRS (n = 126), or CXL-TG-PRK (n = 122) were included. Change in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution uncorrected distance visual acuity was significant with CXL-ICRS (-0.31; 95% CI, -0.38 to -0.24) and CXL-TG-PRK (-0.16; 95% CI, -0.24 to -0.09), but not with CXL alone. No significant differences in change were found between the 3 groups. Change in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was significant in all 3 groups: -0.12 (95% CI, -0.15 to -0.10) with CXL alone, -0.23 (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.20) with CXL-ICRS, and -0.17 (95% CI, -0.21 to -0.13) with CXL-TG-PRK. Improvement in CDVA was greater with CXL-ICRS than with CXL alone (-0.08 ± 0.02; P < .0001) and CXL-TG-PRK (-0.05 ± 0.02; P = .005). Change in Kmax was significant with CXL-ICRS [-3.21 diopters (D); 95% CI, -3.98 to -2.45] and CXL-TG-PRK (-3.69 D; 95% CI, -4.49 to -2.90), but not with CXL alone (-0.05 D; 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.55).
CONCLUSIONS: CXL alone might be best for keratoconic patients who meet the inclusion criteria. CXL-ICRS might be more effective for eyes with more irregular astigmatism and worse CDVA and CXL-TG-PRK for eyes requiring improvements in irregular astigmatism but still have good CDVA.
SETTING: The Kensington Eye Institute and Bochner Eye Institute, Toronto, Canada.
DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized interventional study.
METHODS: Visual and topographical outcomes using a comparative analysis adjusting for preoperative maximum keratometry (Kmax) were evaluated 1 year postoperatively.
RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-two eyes from 375 patients with progressive keratoconus, PMD, or LASIK-induced ectasia that underwent accelerated (9 mW/cm, 10 minutes) CXL alone (n = 204), CXL-ICRS (n = 126), or CXL-TG-PRK (n = 122) were included. Change in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution uncorrected distance visual acuity was significant with CXL-ICRS (-0.31; 95% CI, -0.38 to -0.24) and CXL-TG-PRK (-0.16; 95% CI, -0.24 to -0.09), but not with CXL alone. No significant differences in change were found between the 3 groups. Change in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was significant in all 3 groups: -0.12 (95% CI, -0.15 to -0.10) with CXL alone, -0.23 (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.20) with CXL-ICRS, and -0.17 (95% CI, -0.21 to -0.13) with CXL-TG-PRK. Improvement in CDVA was greater with CXL-ICRS than with CXL alone (-0.08 ± 0.02; P < .0001) and CXL-TG-PRK (-0.05 ± 0.02; P = .005). Change in Kmax was significant with CXL-ICRS [-3.21 diopters (D); 95% CI, -3.98 to -2.45] and CXL-TG-PRK (-3.69 D; 95% CI, -4.49 to -2.90), but not with CXL alone (-0.05 D; 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.55).
CONCLUSIONS: CXL alone might be best for keratoconic patients who meet the inclusion criteria. CXL-ICRS might be more effective for eyes with more irregular astigmatism and worse CDVA and CXL-TG-PRK for eyes requiring improvements in irregular astigmatism but still have good CDVA.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultCollagenCorneal StromaCorneal TopographyCross-Linking ReagentsDilatation, PathologicFemaleHumansKeratoconusLasers, ExcimerMalePhotorefractive KeratectomyPhotosensitizing AgentsPrognosisProspective StudiesProstheses and ImplantsProsthesis ImplantationRefraction, OcularRiboflavinSurgery, Computer-AssistedSurveys and QuestionnairesUltraviolet RaysVisual AcuityYoung Adult