4.5 Article

Prospective longitudinal study of corneal collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconus

Journal

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 6, Pages 531-536

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ceo.12035

Keywords

collagen cross-linking; keratoconus; maximum keratometry

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundCollagen cross-linking has been reported to be effective in treating progressive keratoconus, and this study aims to evaluate the long-term efficacy of this procedure. DesignProspective longitudinal interventional study of patients with progressive keratoconus who underwent cross-linking in a tertiary referral hospital. ParticipantsThirty-five patients (51 eyes) who underwent cross-linking with a mean follow-up of 14.389.36 months (range 6-48) were compared with a control group of 25 fellow eyes that did not undergo the procedure. MethodsCross-linking was performed using 0.1% riboflavin (in 20% dextran T500) and ultraviolet A irradiation (370nm, 3mW/cm(2), 30min). Main Outcome MeasuresMaximum keratometry in dioptres, logMAR best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, cylindrical power, manifest refraction spherical equivalent and central corneal thickness. ResultsAnalysis of the treated group demonstrated a significant flattening of maximum keratometry by 0.96 +/- 2.33 dioptres (P=0.005) and a significant improvement in visual acuity by 0.05 +/- 0.13 logMAR (P=0.04). In the control group, maximum keratometry increased significantly by 0.43 +/- 0.85 dioptres (P=0.05), and visual acuity decreased by mean 0.05 +/- 0.14 (P=0.2). No statistical differences were noted regarding cylindrical power, spherical equivalent or corneal thickness in both groups. ConclusionsResults indicate that corneal collagen cross-linking using riboflavin and ultraviolet A is effective as a therapeutic option in cases of progressive keratoconus by reducing the corneal curvature and by improving the visual acuity in these patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available