4.5 Article

Improved contact lens fitting after corneal cross-linking in eyes with progressive keratoconus

Journal

CONTACT LENS & ANTERIOR EYE
Volume 45, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2021.101488

Keywords

Contact lens; Cross-linking; Keratoconus

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to assess the effects of corneal cross-linking (CXL) on contact lens (CL) fitting in patients with progressive keratoconus who initially had CL intolerance. The results show that CXL not only halts the progression of keratoconus but also improves CL tolerance by providing a more regular shaped cornea.
Objectives: The study aimed to assess the possible effects of corneal cross-linking (CXL) on contact lens (CL) fitting in patients with progressive keratoconus who initially had CL intolerance. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of the medical records of patients who had stopped CL wear due to discomfort prior to CXL and who were fitted with CLs after CXL. All eyes were evaluated pre- and 1, 6, 12, 24 months postoperatively. Data collected included pre- and post-CXL refraction, corneal topographic data, uncorrected visual acuity, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). CL comfort was evaluated using the Likert scale post-CXL. Results: A total of 20 eyes from 14 patients were included in the study. Preoperative Kmax values significantly decreased by 2.8 D at 6 months and by 4.1 D at 12 months after CXL (p < 0.001 for both). CLs were prescribed on average 12 +/- 2.5 months after CXL. The mean duration of successful CL wear was 10.4 +/- 2.8 months during the follow-up period. Subjective CL comfort scores were satisfactory post-CXL. Conclusion: CXL not only halts the progression of keratoconus but may also improve CL tolerance by providing a more regular shaped cornea in these patients. Ongoing corneal topographic changes in the late postoperative period after CXL may have a positive effect on CL fitting.

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