4.2 Article

Pain Management in Corneal Collagen Crosslinking for Keratoconus: A Comparative Case Series

Journal

JOURNAL OF OCULAR PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS
Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 325-330

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2019.0021

Keywords

corneal collagen crosslinking; pain; gabapentin; ketorolac

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare management of postoperative pain after corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) with oral gabapentin or ketorolac. Methods: Prospective interventional comparative case series in a single center. Patients undergoing epithelium-off (epi-off) or epithelium-on (epi-on) techniques performed by a single surgeon for progressive keratoconus were enrolled and randomly assigned to the ketorolac (10-mg tablets every 8 h) or the gabapentin (300-mg capsules every 8 h) group and instructed to take the medication for the first 3 postoperative days. Using a numeric scale of pain, scores were assessed for current pain (at the time of applying the questionnaire), and average pain over the preceding 24 h. Eye symptoms and systemic adverse events related to oral medication were also assessed. Results: Thirty-seven patients were included, with 22 (10 epi-on and 12 epi-off) assigned to the ketorolac group and 15 (7 epi-on and 8 epi-off) to the gabapentin group. No statistically significant differences were noted on the pain scale between groups at any point of the study, in the median pain scores of patients at the time of applying the questionnaire, nor in the severity of pain during the 24-h period before the assessment. Also, no differences were found among groups for the eye symptoms and the systemic adverse events. The median regression analysis showed no effect of the type of surgery or gender in the severity of pain. Conclusions: Both oral ketorolac and oral gabapentin can be used with similar results for pain and symptomatic control after epi-on or epi-off CXL procedures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available