4.4 Article

Collagen cross-linking (CCL) with sequential topography-guided PRK - A temporizing alternative for keratoconus to penetrating keratoplasty

Journal

CORNEA
Volume 26, Issue 7, Pages 891-895

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e318074e424

Keywords

keratoconus; cornea ectasia; surgical management; collagen cross-linking; ultraviolet A; riboflavin; customized topography-guided cornea ablation; visual rehabilitation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of ultraviolet A (UVA) irradiation-induced collagen cross-linking (CCL) on keratoconus (KC) progression. Methods: A patient with bilateral, progressive KC underwent UVA irradiation (3 mW/cm(2) for 30 minutes) after topical 0.1% riboflavin drops over a deep ithelialized cornea. Twelve months later, a topography-guided penetrating keratoplasty (PRK; wavelight 400 Hz Eye-Q excimer) was performed in I eye for a refractive error of -3.50 -4.00 X 155 by using an attempted treatment of -2.50 -3.00 X 155. At all postoperative follow-up visits to IS months uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle-corrected visuai acuity (BSCVA), pachymetry, and topography were performed. Results: In the treated left eye, the UCVA after the UVA CCL improved from 20/100 to 20/80, and the BSCVA improved from 20/50 to 20/40. Eighteen months after the topography-guided PRK, the UCVA was 20/20, and the BSCVA was 20/15, with a refractive error of Plano -0.50 X 150. The cornea was clear, and the endothelial cell count remained unchanged. The untreated right mate eye continued to progress during the same period. Conclusions: The significant clinical improvement and the apparent stability of more than a year after UVA CCL, and subsequent PRK compared with the untreated mate eye, seems to validate this treatment approach for KC. An adjusted nomogram may be considered in the ablation of cross-linked cornea tissue to avoid overcorrections.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available