4.3 Article

Intracorneal ring segment implantation for the management of keratoconus: Safety and efficacy

Journal

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
Volume 33, Issue 11, Pages 1886-1891

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.06.055

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess the safety and efficacy of intracorneal ring segment (Intacs, Addition Technology, Inc.) implantation in the management of keratoconus. Setting: Department of Ophthalmology and Ophthalmic Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Methods: This prospective case series comprised 30 keratoconic eyes (22 patients) with a clear central cornea that had Intacs implantation. All patients were contact-lens intolerant. The main outcome measures were uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), refraction, keratometry, and pachymetry. Patients were examined before Intacs implantation as well as 1 week and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Results: The mean age of the 5 women and 17 men was 25.9 years +/- 5.29 (SD). The mean UCVA improved from 0.60 +/- 0.311 logMAR preoperatively to 0.29 +/- 0.20 logMAR 6 months postoperatively (P <.001) and the mean BSCVA, from 0.25 +/- 0.16 logMAR to 0.13 +/- 0.14 logMAR, respectively (P <.001).The mean spherical equivalent improved from -6.93 +/- 3.52 diopters (D) preoperatively to -3.23 +/- 2.81 D at 6 months and the mean refractive cylinder, from -4.65 +/- 1.85 D to -3.90 +/- 1.70 D, respectively. The mean keratometry decreased from 49.84 +/- 3.58 D preoperatively to 47.90 +/- 3.58 D postoperatively (P <.001). Three eyes had ring exposure, and 1 eye had bacterial keratitis and ring exposure. Conclusion: Intacs implantation appeared to be effective in improving UCVA and BSCVA in patients with mild to moderate keratoconus and contact-lens intolerance.

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