3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Long-term follow up of intracorneal ring segment implantation in 932 keratoconus eyes

Journal

JOURNAL FRANCAIS D OPHTALMOLOGIE
Volume 43, Issue 10, Pages 1020-1024

Publisher

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfo.2020.03.019

Keywords

Intracorneal ring segments; Keratoconus; Keratoconus progression; Cornea

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose.- To evaluate the progression of keratoconus in 932 eyes of 659 patients through visual, refractive and topographic data after intracorneal ring segment (ICRS) implantation. Methods.- Retrospective review of 659 patients who underwent ICRS (Intacs(R)) implantation for keratoconus between September 1997 and November 2017. Demographics, preoperative and postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in LogMAR, corneal topography parameters (thinnest pachymetry, Kmax), central corneal pachymetry and total follow-up time were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 24.0 for windows. Results.- Nine hundred and thirty-two eyes of 659 patients, with a mean age of 30.41 years (range 11-76 years), were evaluated. Mean total follow up time was 3.02 years. Forty-one eyes had a total follow up of over 10 years. Both UCVA and BCVA improved significantly after ICRS implantation (P<0.01). Only 18 eyes (2.66% of eyes of patients under 35 years of age) were found to have progression of keratoconus based on postoperative topographic data (Mean age 23.00 years, 55.6% female, total follow-up 2 to 10 years) CONCLUSION.- ICRS implantation showed long-term improvement and stability in visual and topographic results in a large case series of patients with keratoconus. Only a minimal rate of progression was detected in young patients. However, further prospective studies need to be conducted to better define predictability of postoperative visual outcomes and progression. (C) 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available