European journal of ophthalmology · 2019
Standard and accelerated corneal cross-linking long-term results: A randomized clinical trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Hashemi Hassan, Mohebbi Masoomeh, Asgari Soheila
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare long-term results between accelerated and standard corneal cross-linking protocols in the treatment of progressive keratoconus and compare their effectiveness between central (cone in the central 3 mm) and peripheral (cone beyond 3 mm) cases.
METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, we compared 31 eyes treated with accelerated corneal cross-linking (18 mW/cm2, 5 min) and 31 eyes treated with standard corneal cross-linking (3 mW/cm2, 30 min), 16 central and 11 peripheral keratoconus in each group. In this report, 4-year changes in vision, refraction, topography, corneal biomechanics, and corneal cell count were evaluated.
RESULTS: Uncorrected distance visual acuity improvement was better with standard corneal cross-linking (0.19 ± 0.30 logMAR) than accelerated corneal cross-linking (0.08 ± 0.35 logMAR), but the intergroup difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.283). Cylinder and spherical equivalent significantly increased similarly in both groups. Among topographic indices, anterior Kmax-3 mm showed more reduction in standard corneal cross-linking than accelerated corneal cross-linking (1.35 ± 1.39 vs 0.36 ± 1.10 D, p = 0.011). Anterior Kmax-8 mm reduced by 1.50 ± 1.82 and 0.37 ± 1.58 D in the standard corneal cross-linking and accelerated corneal cross-linking groups, respectively (p = 0.029). Compared to 18-month results, none of the indices at 4 years showed any significant intergroup difference (all p > 0.05). In cases with peripheral keratoconus, changes in anterior Kmax-3 mm (+0.03 ± 0.66 vs -1.17 ± 1.15 D, p = 0.012) and anterior Kmax-8 mm (+0.43 ± 1.09 vs -1.57 ± 1.40 D, p = 0.003) were greater with standard corneal cross-linking. In central cases, no significant intergroup difference was observed.
CONCLUSION: At 4 years after the procedure, standard corneal cross-linking offered better anterior corneal flattening in the center and periphery. These differences concerned cases of peripheral keratoconus, and the two protocols were similarly effective in central cases. Beyond the 18th month, the two protocols appeared to be similarly effective.
METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, we compared 31 eyes treated with accelerated corneal cross-linking (18 mW/cm2, 5 min) and 31 eyes treated with standard corneal cross-linking (3 mW/cm2, 30 min), 16 central and 11 peripheral keratoconus in each group. In this report, 4-year changes in vision, refraction, topography, corneal biomechanics, and corneal cell count were evaluated.
RESULTS: Uncorrected distance visual acuity improvement was better with standard corneal cross-linking (0.19 ± 0.30 logMAR) than accelerated corneal cross-linking (0.08 ± 0.35 logMAR), but the intergroup difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.283). Cylinder and spherical equivalent significantly increased similarly in both groups. Among topographic indices, anterior Kmax-3 mm showed more reduction in standard corneal cross-linking than accelerated corneal cross-linking (1.35 ± 1.39 vs 0.36 ± 1.10 D, p = 0.011). Anterior Kmax-8 mm reduced by 1.50 ± 1.82 and 0.37 ± 1.58 D in the standard corneal cross-linking and accelerated corneal cross-linking groups, respectively (p = 0.029). Compared to 18-month results, none of the indices at 4 years showed any significant intergroup difference (all p > 0.05). In cases with peripheral keratoconus, changes in anterior Kmax-3 mm (+0.03 ± 0.66 vs -1.17 ± 1.15 D, p = 0.012) and anterior Kmax-8 mm (+0.43 ± 1.09 vs -1.57 ± 1.40 D, p = 0.003) were greater with standard corneal cross-linking. In central cases, no significant intergroup difference was observed.
CONCLUSION: At 4 years after the procedure, standard corneal cross-linking offered better anterior corneal flattening in the center and periphery. These differences concerned cases of peripheral keratoconus, and the two protocols were similarly effective in central cases. Beyond the 18th month, the two protocols appeared to be similarly effective.