We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Comparison of transepithelial corneal collagen crosslinking with epithelium-off crosslinking in progressive keratoconus.
Journal Français D'ophtalmologie 2014 May
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of transepithelial corneal collagen crosslinking (TE-CXL) as compared to epithelium-off crosslinking (epi-off CXL) in progressive keratoconus.
METHODS: Records of keratoconus patients treated with TE-CXL or epi-off CXL were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were included if they had at least 12months follow-up. Pre- and postoperative measurements of visual acuity, refractive errors, keratometry, corneal topography and pachymetry were assessed and compared.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between two groups at baseline in terms of demographic, refractive and corneal parameters. Mean maximum cone apex curvature (apical K) increased from 51.62±5. Eighty-four diopters (D) to 53.70±5.49 D in the TE-CXL group (n=17), and decreased from 52.02±4.07 D to 51.22±3.51 in the epi-off CXL group (n=19) at the end of the follow-up period. The difference between two groups was statistically significant (P=0.0002). An increase of≥1D in apical K was observed in two of 19 eyes (11%) in the epi-off CXL group, and 11 of 17 eyes (65%) in TE-CXL group at the last follow-up visit, compared to baseline (P<0.0001). Fourteen patients in the epi-off CXL group exhibited corneal edema that resolved without haze with topical corticosteroid treatment by 4months. No postoperative corneal edema was observed in TE-CXL group.
CONCLUSIONS: Although it is safe and well tolerated, TE-CXL does not effectively halt the progression of keratoconus. Epi-off CXL appears to be effective in stopping progression and even improves corneal parameters.
METHODS: Records of keratoconus patients treated with TE-CXL or epi-off CXL were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were included if they had at least 12months follow-up. Pre- and postoperative measurements of visual acuity, refractive errors, keratometry, corneal topography and pachymetry were assessed and compared.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between two groups at baseline in terms of demographic, refractive and corneal parameters. Mean maximum cone apex curvature (apical K) increased from 51.62±5. Eighty-four diopters (D) to 53.70±5.49 D in the TE-CXL group (n=17), and decreased from 52.02±4.07 D to 51.22±3.51 in the epi-off CXL group (n=19) at the end of the follow-up period. The difference between two groups was statistically significant (P=0.0002). An increase of≥1D in apical K was observed in two of 19 eyes (11%) in the epi-off CXL group, and 11 of 17 eyes (65%) in TE-CXL group at the last follow-up visit, compared to baseline (P<0.0001). Fourteen patients in the epi-off CXL group exhibited corneal edema that resolved without haze with topical corticosteroid treatment by 4months. No postoperative corneal edema was observed in TE-CXL group.
CONCLUSIONS: Although it is safe and well tolerated, TE-CXL does not effectively halt the progression of keratoconus. Epi-off CXL appears to be effective in stopping progression and even improves corneal parameters.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Anti-Arrhythmic Effects of Heart Failure Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and Their Role in the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: From Beta-Blockers to Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors and Beyond.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 Februrary 27
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app