Comparative study of long-term outcomes of accelerated and conventional collagen crosslinking for progressive keratoconus

29Citations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

PurposeTo compare the long-term outcomes of accelerated corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) to conventional CXL for progressive keratoconus.Patients and methodsComparative clinical study of consecutive progressive keratoconic eyes that underwent either accelerated CXL (9 mW/cm 2 ultraviolet A (UVA) light irradiance for 10 min) or conventional CXL (3 mW/cm 2 UVA light irradiance for 30 min). Eyes with minimum 12 months' follow-up were included. Post-procedure changes in keratometry readings (Flat meridian: K1; steep meridian: K2), central corneal thickness (CCT), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), and manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) were analysed.ResultsA total of 42 eyes were included. In all, 21 eyes had accelerated CXL (20.5±5.5 months' follow-up) and 21 eyes had conventional CXL group (20.2±5.6 months' follow-up). In the accelerated CXL group, a significant reduction in K2 (P=0.02), however no significant change in K1 (P=0.35) and CCT (P=0.62) was noted. In the conventional CXL group, a significant reduction was seen in K1 (P=0.01) and K2 (P=0.04), but not in CCT (P=0.95). Although both groups exhibited significant reductions in K2 readings, no noteworthy differences were noted between them (P=0.36). Improvements in BSCVA (accelerated CXL; P=0.22 and conventional CXL; P=0.20) and MRSE (accelerated CXL; P=0.97 and conventional CXL; P=0.54) were noted, however were not significant in either group.ConclusionAccelerated and conventional CXL appear to be effective procedures for stabilising progressive keratoconus in the long-term.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Males, J. J., & Viswanathan, D. (2018). Comparative study of long-term outcomes of accelerated and conventional collagen crosslinking for progressive keratoconus. Eye (Basingstoke), 32(1), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2017.296

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free