American journal of ophthalmology · 2015
Transepithelial versus epithelium-off corneal cross-linking for the treatment of progressive keratoconus: a randomized controlled trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Soeters Nienke, Wisse Robert P L, Godefrooij Daniël A, Imhof Saskia M, Tahzib Nayyirih G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effects and safety of transepithelial corneal cross-linking (CXL) to epithelium-off (epi-off) CXL in progressive keratoconus.
DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial (noninferiority).
METHODS: Patients received either transepithelial CXL with Ricrolin TE (n = 35) or epi-off CXL with isotonic riboflavin (n = 26) in 1 academic treatment center, using a simple unrestricted randomization procedure. The main outcome measure was clinical stabilization of keratoconus after 1 year, defined as a maximal keratometry (Kmax) increase <1 diopter (D).
RESULTS: Average Kmax was stable at all visits in the transepithelial group, while after epi-off CXL a significant flattening of 1.2-1.5 D was demonstrated from the 3-month follow-up onwards. The trend over time in Kmax flattening was significantly different between the groups (P = .022). Eight eyes (23%) in the transepithelial group showed a Kmax increase of >1 D after 1 year (range 1.3-5.4 D) vs none in the epi-off group (P = .017). There was significant different trend in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), with a more favorable outcome in the transepithelial group (P = .023). In the transepithelial group, no complications occurred and in the epi-off group, 4 eyes (15%) developed complications owing to healing problems (sterile infiltrate, herpes keratitis, central haze, and stromal scar).
CONCLUSION: This study showed that although transepithelial CXL was a safe procedure without epithelial healing problems, 23% of cases showed a continued keratoconus progression after 1 year. Therefore, at this time, we do not recommend replacing epi-off CXL by transepithelial CXL for treatment of progressive keratoconus.
DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial (noninferiority).
METHODS: Patients received either transepithelial CXL with Ricrolin TE (n = 35) or epi-off CXL with isotonic riboflavin (n = 26) in 1 academic treatment center, using a simple unrestricted randomization procedure. The main outcome measure was clinical stabilization of keratoconus after 1 year, defined as a maximal keratometry (Kmax) increase <1 diopter (D).
RESULTS: Average Kmax was stable at all visits in the transepithelial group, while after epi-off CXL a significant flattening of 1.2-1.5 D was demonstrated from the 3-month follow-up onwards. The trend over time in Kmax flattening was significantly different between the groups (P = .022). Eight eyes (23%) in the transepithelial group showed a Kmax increase of >1 D after 1 year (range 1.3-5.4 D) vs none in the epi-off group (P = .017). There was significant different trend in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), with a more favorable outcome in the transepithelial group (P = .023). In the transepithelial group, no complications occurred and in the epi-off group, 4 eyes (15%) developed complications owing to healing problems (sterile infiltrate, herpes keratitis, central haze, and stromal scar).
CONCLUSION: This study showed that although transepithelial CXL was a safe procedure without epithelial healing problems, 23% of cases showed a continued keratoconus progression after 1 year. Therefore, at this time, we do not recommend replacing epi-off CXL by transepithelial CXL for treatment of progressive keratoconus.