4.3 Article

Corneal stromal demarcation line after 4 protocols of corneal crosslinking in keratoconus determined with anterior segment optical coherence tomography

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
卷 44, 期 5, 页码 596-602

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.02.017

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To use anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) to compare corneal stromal demarcation line depth after 4 treatment protocols of corneal crosslinking (CXL). Setting: Eye Clinic, Sapienza University of Rome, Terracina (Latina), Italy. Design: Prospective case series. Methods: Patients with progressive keratoconus were delegated to one of the following CXL treatments: (1) conventional epithelium (epi)-off 3 mW/cm(2) according to the standard Dresden protocol (C-CXL group), (2) _accelerated epi-off 10 mW/cm(2) (A-CXL group), (3) transepithelial epi-on 3 mW/cm(2) (TE-CXL group), or (4) transepithelial epi-on by iontophoresis 10 mW/cm(2) (I-CXL group). Two independent observers measured the corneal stromal demarcation line using AS-OCT. Results: The study comprised 70 patients (120 eyes, 30 eyes in each group). The corneal stromal demarcation line was identified on AS-OCT scans in 109 eyes (90.8%). One month after the treatment, the mean stromal demarcation line depth was 275.05 mu m +/- 41.83 (SD) in the C-CXL group, 279.35 +/- 33.07 mu m in the A-CXL group, 132.60 +/- 22.14 mu m in the TE-CXL group, and 235.40 +/- 37.08 mu m in the I-CXL group. The difference in stromal demarcation line depth was not statistically significant between the C-CXL and A-CXL group, but it was statistically significant (P < .05) between the epi-off and epi-on CXL groups and between the 2 epi-on groups, where the demarcation line was significantly deeper in the I-CXL group than in the TE-CXL group. Conclusion: The corneal stromal demarcation line was significantly deeper after epi-off 30-minute standard CXL treatment and after epi-off 9-minute accelerated CXL with high-intensity ultraviolet-A irradiation. (C) 2018 ASCRS and ESCRS

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据