EDTA chelation for symptomatic band keratopathy: Results and recurrence

33Citations
Citations of this article
54Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

PurposeTo identify causes of symptomatic band keratopathy, and assess the results and long-term recurrence rates following chelation with topical ethylene-diamine-tetra-acetic acid (EDTA).Patients and methodsA retrospective review of surgical logbooks identified patients managed by EDTA chelation for symptomatic band keratopathy from 2009 to 2015.ResultsWe identified 108 cases; 89 case notes were available for analysis. Most cases of band keratopathy were idiopathic (36%). The most commonly identified underlying diagnosis was long-term topical glaucoma therapy (27%). Median presenting visual acuity was 6/18 (range 6/6-NPL) with the visual axis affected in 97.8% of cases. Treatment involved corneal epithelium removal, recurrent application of topical EDTA, and subsequent debridement. The mean duration of the operation was 20 min (range 10-45). Mean initial follow-up time was 40 days, and the visual axis was clear in 97.8%. Visual acuity was maintained or improved in 79.8%, with 13.5% improving by two lines or more. The mean length of follow-up was 581 days (median 374, maximum 2438). Twenty-five eyes (28.1%) showed localised recurrence of calcium with a mean time of 546 days (median 374), but only four cases required repeat EDTA chelation. The median time between operations was 430 days. Thirty-two per cent of the recurrence cases were associated with hypotony or chronic presence of silicone oil.ConclusionsChelation of calcium with topical EDTA is a safe and effective treatment for band keratopathy. Visual acuity improves in most eyes and while the rate of recurrence is moderate, the need for retreatment is low (4.5% overall).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Al-Hity, A., Ramaesh, K., & Lockington, D. (2018). EDTA chelation for symptomatic band keratopathy: Results and recurrence. Eye (Basingstoke), 32(1), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2017.264

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