4.3 Article

Evaluation of Keratoconus Disease with Tear Cytokine and Chemokine Levels Before and After Corneal Cross-Linking Treatment

Journal

OCULAR IMMUNOLOGY AND INFLAMMATION
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09273948.2023.2165950

Keywords

Chemokines; collagen cross-linking; cornea; cytokines; inflammation; keratoconus

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Comparing tear cytokine and chemokine levels in keratoconus (KC) patients and controls can help us understand the etiology more clearly and clarify the molecular changes after cross-linking (CXL).
ObjectivesTo compare tear cytokine and chemokine levels of keratoconus (KC) patients with controls to perceive etiology distinctly and to clarify the molecular changes after cross-linking (CXL).MethodsTear samples were gathered from 34 participants in this prospective study. Participants underwent anterior and posterior segment examinations with slit-lamp biomicroscopy. Patients were assessed by corneal topography before and 3 months after CXL. Flat (K-1), steep (K-2), and average keratometry (K-mean), cylinder (CYL), and central corneal thickness (CCT) values were evaluated. After 3 months from CXL, samples were re-collected, and comparisons were made with preoperative values.ResultsLevels of IFN-gamma, IL-8, IL-12, IL-17, TNF-alpha, IL-4 and IL-13 were detected higher in KC patients (p= 0.008, p= 0.047, p= 0.001, p= 0.001, p= 0.001, p= 0.001, p= 0.027, respectively). After CXL IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-7, IL-8, TNF-alpha levels showed significant decrease (p= 0.005, p= 0.045, p= 0.010, p= 0.022, p= 0.001, p=0.002, respectively). As for the topographic measurements, postoperative CCT values were increased whereas K-mean reduced after CXL (p < 0.001, p = 0.015, respectively). (p= 0.001, p= 0.027, respectively).ConclusionOur findings imply that inflammation plays a key role in the development of KC and that this link is influenced by CXL therapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available