We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Comparison of long-term outcomes of simultaneous accelerated corneal crosslinking combined with intracorneal ring segment or topography-guided PRK.
Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2024 April 2
PURPOSE: To compare long-term outcomes of simultaneous accelerated corneal crosslinking (CXL) with intrastromal corneal ring segments (CXL-ICRS) with simultaneous accelerated CXL with topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy (CXL-TG-PRK) in progressive keratoconus (KC).
SETTING: Kensington Eye Institute and Bochner Eye Institute, Toronto, Canada.
DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized interventional study.
METHODS: The change in visual and topographical outcomes of CXL-ICRS and CXL-TG-PRK 4 to 5 years postoperatively were compared using linear regression models adjusted for preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and maximum keratometry (Kmax).
RESULTS: 57 eyes of 43 patients with progressive KC who underwent simultaneous accelerated (9 mW/cm 2 , 10 minutes) CXL-ICRS (n = 32) and CXL-TG-PRK (n = 25) were included. Mean follow-up duration was 51.28 (9.58) and 54.57 (5.81) months for the CXL-ICRS and CXL-TG-PRK groups, respectively. Initial mean Kmax was higher in the CXL-ICRS group compared with the CXL-TG-PRK group (60.68 ± 6.81 diopters [D] vs 57.15 ± 4.19 D, P = .02). At the last follow-up, change (improvement) in logMAR uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) compared with that preoperatively was significant with CXL-ICRS (-0.31 ± 0.27, P < .001, which is equivalent to approximately 3 lines) and not significant with CXL-TG-PRK (-0.06 ± 0.42, P = .43). The logMAR CDVA improved significantly with CXL-ICRS (-0.22 ± 0.20, P < .001), but not with CXL-TG-PRK (-0.05 ± 0.22, P = .25). Adjusting for baseline Kmax and CDVA, the improvement in UDVA was significantly greater with CXL-ICRS than with CXL-TG-PRK (-0.27, 95% CI, 0.06-0.47, P = .01). Improvement in CDVA was not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of progressive KC with long-term follow-up, UDVA showed more improvement with accelerated CXL-ICRS than with CXL-TG-PRK.
SETTING: Kensington Eye Institute and Bochner Eye Institute, Toronto, Canada.
DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized interventional study.
METHODS: The change in visual and topographical outcomes of CXL-ICRS and CXL-TG-PRK 4 to 5 years postoperatively were compared using linear regression models adjusted for preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and maximum keratometry (Kmax).
RESULTS: 57 eyes of 43 patients with progressive KC who underwent simultaneous accelerated (9 mW/cm 2 , 10 minutes) CXL-ICRS (n = 32) and CXL-TG-PRK (n = 25) were included. Mean follow-up duration was 51.28 (9.58) and 54.57 (5.81) months for the CXL-ICRS and CXL-TG-PRK groups, respectively. Initial mean Kmax was higher in the CXL-ICRS group compared with the CXL-TG-PRK group (60.68 ± 6.81 diopters [D] vs 57.15 ± 4.19 D, P = .02). At the last follow-up, change (improvement) in logMAR uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) compared with that preoperatively was significant with CXL-ICRS (-0.31 ± 0.27, P < .001, which is equivalent to approximately 3 lines) and not significant with CXL-TG-PRK (-0.06 ± 0.42, P = .43). The logMAR CDVA improved significantly with CXL-ICRS (-0.22 ± 0.20, P < .001), but not with CXL-TG-PRK (-0.05 ± 0.22, P = .25). Adjusting for baseline Kmax and CDVA, the improvement in UDVA was significantly greater with CXL-ICRS than with CXL-TG-PRK (-0.27, 95% CI, 0.06-0.47, P = .01). Improvement in CDVA was not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of progressive KC with long-term follow-up, UDVA showed more improvement with accelerated CXL-ICRS than with CXL-TG-PRK.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
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