4.3 Article

Corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: One-year results

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 149-160

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.07.030

关键词

-

资金

  1. Peschke Meditrade GmbH, Zurich, Switzerland
  2. Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., New York, New York, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate 1-year outcomes of corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) for treatment of keratoconus and corneal ectasia. SETTING: Cornea and refractive surgery subspecialty practice. DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. METHODS: Collagen crosslinking was performed in eyes with keratoconus or ectasia. The treatment group received standard CXL and the sham control group received riboflavin alone. Principal outcomes included uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, refraction, astigmatism, and topography-derived outcomes of maximum and average keratometry (K) value. RESULTS: The UDVA improved significantly from 0.84 logMAR +/- 0.34 (SD) (20/137) to 0.77 +/- 0.37 logMAR (20/117) (P = .04) and the CDVA, from 0.35 +/- 0.24 logMAR (20/45) to 0.23 +/- 0.21 logMAR (20/34) (P<.001). Fifteen patients (21.1%) gained and 1 patient lost (1.4%) 2 or more Snellen lines of CDVA. The maximum K value decreased from baseline by 1.7 +/- 3.9 diopters (D) (P<.001), 2.0 +/- 4.4 D (P = .002), and 1.0 +/- 2.5 D (P = .08) in the entire cohort, keratoconus subgroup, and ectasia subgroup, respectively. The maximum K value decreased by 2.0 D or more in 22 patients (31.0%) and increased by 2.0 D or more in 3 patients (4.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Collagen crosslinking was effective in improving UDVA, CDVA, the maximum K value, and the average K value. Keratoconus patients had more improvement in topographic measurements than patients with ectasia. Both CDVA and maximum K value worsened between baseline and 1 month, followed by improvement between 1, 3, and 6 months and stabilization thereafter.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据