Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2019
Iontophoresis CXL With and Without Epithelial Debridement Versus Standard CXL: 2-Year Clinical Results of a Prospective Clinical Study.
Clinical StudyСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Vinciguerra Paolo, Rosetta Pietro, Legrottaglie Emanuela F, Morenghi Emanuela, Mazzotta Cosimo, Kaye Stephen B, Vinciguerra Riccardo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the 2-year follow-up outcomes of three groups of patients with keratoconus treated with transepithelial iontophoresis (I-CXL), iontophoresis with epithelial removal (I-SCXL), and standard epithelium-off (S-CXL) CXL for progressive keratoconus.
METHODS: Sixty eyes of 60 patients treated with CXL for progressive keratoconus were included in this comparative, prospective clinical study. Twenty patients were included in each group (I-CXL, I-SCXL, and S-CXL). Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), refraction, corneal topography, Scheimpflug tomography, and aberrometry were assessed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up. To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of these treatments, the preoperative values were compared with the values at 24 months of follow-up.
RESULTS: The main outcome of the study was the non-statistically significant difference between the three protocols in induced change in most of the parameters, including visual acuity (P = .665), topographic indexes (all P > .05), and maximum keratometry (P = .611) after 2 years of follow-up. There were no significant differences in the change in refractive error following CXL in all groups or between groups (all P > .05). Conversely, I-CXL induced significantly less corneal thinning (P = .0299 and .0121) and a significantly greater reduction of higher order aberrations and coma (all P < .0001) compared to S-CXL and I-SCXL. All protocols induced a significant increase in visual acuity (S-CXL P = .0004, I-SCXL P = .0045, and I-CXL P = .004).
CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year results of this comparative, prospective clinical study demonstrate the efficacy and safety of I-CXL to treat progressive keratoconus and overcome the limitations of CXL with epithelial debridement. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(3):184-190.].
METHODS: Sixty eyes of 60 patients treated with CXL for progressive keratoconus were included in this comparative, prospective clinical study. Twenty patients were included in each group (I-CXL, I-SCXL, and S-CXL). Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), refraction, corneal topography, Scheimpflug tomography, and aberrometry were assessed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up. To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of these treatments, the preoperative values were compared with the values at 24 months of follow-up.
RESULTS: The main outcome of the study was the non-statistically significant difference between the three protocols in induced change in most of the parameters, including visual acuity (P = .665), topographic indexes (all P > .05), and maximum keratometry (P = .611) after 2 years of follow-up. There were no significant differences in the change in refractive error following CXL in all groups or between groups (all P > .05). Conversely, I-CXL induced significantly less corneal thinning (P = .0299 and .0121) and a significantly greater reduction of higher order aberrations and coma (all P < .0001) compared to S-CXL and I-SCXL. All protocols induced a significant increase in visual acuity (S-CXL P = .0004, I-SCXL P = .0045, and I-CXL P = .004).
CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year results of this comparative, prospective clinical study demonstrate the efficacy and safety of I-CXL to treat progressive keratoconus and overcome the limitations of CXL with epithelial debridement. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(3):184-190.].