4 years ago

Pediatric Corneal Cross-linking: Comparison of Visual and Topographic Outcomes Between Conventional and Accelerated Treatment

To compare visual and topographic outcomes 1 year after conventional (C-CXL) vs accelerated corneal cross-linking (A-CXL) in pediatric keratoconus (KC). Design Comparative, retrospective, consecutive case series. Methods Patients with topography-confirmed, progressive KC and a corneal thickness of ≥400 μm at the time of surgery were enrolled. Uncorrected (UCVA) and best phoropter-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and normal maximum keratometry reading (Kmax) were measured at study entry and at the 12-month follow-up. Treatment failure rate was defined as the percentage of eyes with an increase in Kmax of more than 1.0 diopter during follow-up. The adverse event rate was the percentage of eyes with a loss of ≥2 Snellen lines of BCVA from baseline. This was a single-center analysis of 78 eyes of 58 patients that underwent C-CXL (39 eyes) and A-CXL (39 eyes). No eyes were lost to follow-up after 12 months. Results No significant difference between changes in 12 months after as compared to the time before CXL for UCVA (0.01 log MAR; 95% confidence interval −0.14 to 0.15, P = .944), BCVA (0.05 log MAR; 95% confidence interval −0.05 to 0.15, P = .310), and Kmax (−0.77 diopters; 95% confidence interval −2.20 to 0.65, P = .282) between the C-CXL and A-CXL group were observed. Treatment failure rate was observed in 9 of 39 eyes (23.1%) in C-CXL and in 6 of 39 eyes (15.4%) in A-CXL (P = .389). Adverse events were seen only in 1 eye in the C-CXL group. Conclusions In this retrospective comparison, the accelerated approach was equally as effective as the conventional protocol to treat pediatric keratoconus.

Publisher URL: www.sciencedirect.com/science

DOI: S0002939417303495

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.