1. Comparison of accelerated CXL alone, accelerated CXL-ICRS, and accelerated CXL-TG-PRK in progressive keratoconus and other corneal ectasias
- Author
-
Sherif El-Defrawy, David S. Rootman, Theodore Rabinovitch, Christoph Kranemann, Neera Singal, Wendy Hatch, Matthew C. Bujak, David Dai, Clara C. Chan, Ya-Ping Jin, Ashley Cohen, Allan R. Slomovic, Stephan Ong Tone, Hall F. Chew, and Raymond M. Stein
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Keratoconus ,Ultraviolet Rays ,Corneal Stroma ,Riboflavin ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Visual Acuity ,Pellucid marginal degeneration ,Keratomileusis ,Refraction, Ocular ,Photorefractive Keratectomy ,law.invention ,Prosthesis Implantation ,Young Adult ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,law ,Surveys and Questionnaires ,Ectasia ,Ophthalmology ,medicine ,Humans ,Prospective Studies ,Dioptre ,Photosensitizing Agents ,Keratometer ,business.industry ,Corneal Topography ,LASIK ,Prostheses and Implants ,Prognosis ,medicine.disease ,Sensory Systems ,Photorefractive keratectomy ,Cross-Linking Reagents ,Surgery, Computer-Assisted ,030221 ophthalmology & optometry ,Female ,Lasers, Excimer ,Surgery ,Collagen ,business ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery ,Dilatation, Pathologic - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF