4.5 Article

Two-year changes in corneal stiffness parameters after accelerated corneal cross-linking

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 93, 期 -, 页码 209-212

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.06.011

关键词

Accelerated corneal cross-linking; Corneal stiffness; Dynamic corneal response; 9 mW/cm(2) protocol; 18 mW/cm(2) protocol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this non-randomized trial was comparison of two-year changes in dynamic corneal response (DCR) between 18 mW/cm(2) (5- min) and 9 mW/cm(2) (10-min) cross-linking (CXL) protocols, using novel stiffness parameters and correlating them to clinical indices. The two groups were evaluated before and 2 years after the procedure using Corvis ST (Oculus Optikgerate GmbH, Germany) and DCR parameters such as deformation amplitude ratio at 1 mm and 2 mm (DA ratio-1 mm and DA ratio-2 mm) and integrated radius and stiffness parameters at A1 (SP-A1). Two-year follow-up was completed for 16 of the 30 eyes in the 5-min group and 21 of the 25 eyes in the 10-min group; data from those who were lost to follow-up was not included in the analyses. Mean age at baseline was 21.7 +/- 4.9 and 21.5 +/- 5.2 years in the 5- and 10-min groups, respectively (P = 0.895). At 2 years after CXL, in the 5-min group, the reduction in integrated radius (-1.12 +/- 1.27 mm, P = 0.003) was significant, and the increase in SP-A1 (7.11 +/- 14.86 mmHg/mm, P = 0.075) was borderline, while in the 10-min group, the decrease in DA ratio-2 mm (-0.43 +/- 0.58, P = 0.003) and integrated radius (-1.89 +/- 1.72 mm, P < 0.001), and increase in SP-A1 (7.67 +/- 10.92 mmHg/mm, P = 0.004) were significant. In both groups, the strongest and significant correlation was observed between DCR parameters and changes in radius of curvature. In conclusion, results indicated corneal strengthening with both protocols especially with the 9 mW/cm(2). Corvis ST indices can provide in vivo biomechanical evidence on the efficacy of CXL that may occur prior to clinical indices. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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