Central versus paracentral cone location and outcomes of accelerated cross-linking in keratoconus patients.


Journal

Eye (London, England)
ISSN: 1476-5454
Titre abrégé: Eye (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8703986

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2021
Historique:
received: 31 07 2020
accepted: 13 01 2021
revised: 07 12 2020
pubmed: 31 1 2021
medline: 15 4 2022
entrez: 30 1 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To compare outcomes 1 year after accelerated cross-linking (CXL) between keratoconus eyes with central cones to those with paracentral cones. In this post hoc analysis of data from a prospective multicentre study, consecutive progressive keratoconus eyes treated with accelerated CXL were included. Preoperative and 1 year post CXL manifest refraction, corneal cylinder, maximal keratometry (Kmax), central corneal thickness and coma were assessed. Central and paracentral cones were defined as cones within the central 3 mm and those between 3 and 5 mm, respectively. Eyes with apical scarring and peripheral cones (>5 mm) were excluded. The primary outcome measures were changes in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and Kmax. Overall, 314 eyes (n = 314) with a mean age of 27.5 ± 7.7 years were included. At baseline, the central cone group was younger (p < 0.001), had lower corneal astigmatism (p = 0.03) and coma (p = 0.02). At 1 year post CXL, after adjusting for baseline characteristics (age, BSCVA, corneal astigmatism, Kmax and coma), the central cone group showed a greater reduction in myopia (mean difference 1.27 ± 0.60D, p = 0.04) and more improvement in BSCVA (mean difference 0.08 ± 0.02 logMAR, p < 0.001) compared to the paracentral group. There was no significant difference in progression rates between the central and paracentral groups (ΔKmax > 2D, 6.7% vs. 6.5%, respectively, p = 0.83). This large-scale study of keratoconus eyes 1 year after accelerated CXL indicates that compared to those with paracentral cones, central cones have on average almost one additional line improvement in BCSVA and 1.27 D more reduction in myopia.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33514906
doi: 10.1038/s41433-021-01404-5
pii: 10.1038/s41433-021-01404-5
pmc: PMC8602256
doi:

Substances chimiques

Cross-Linking Reagents 0
Photosensitizing Agents 0
Collagen 9007-34-5
Riboflavin TLM2976OFR

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

3311-3317

Investigateurs

Raymond Stein (R)
Matthew C Bujak (MC)
Clara C Chan (CC)
Hall F Chew (HF)
Sherif El-Defrawy (S)
Christoph Kranemann (C)
Theodore Rabinovitch (T)
David S Rootman (DS)
Allan R Slomovic (AR)

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists.

Références

Mathew JH, Goosey JD, Bergmanson JPG. Quantified histopathology of the keratoconic cornea. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88:988–97.
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31821ffbd4
Wollensak G, Spoerl E, Seiler T. Riboflavin/ultraviolet-a-induced collagen crosslinking for the treatment of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135:620–7.
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9394(02)02220-1
Raiskup-Wolf F, Hoyer A, Spoerl E, Pillunat LE. Collagen crosslinking with riboflavin and ultraviolet-A light in keratoconus: Long-term results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:796–801.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.12.039
Brooks NO, Greenstein S, Fry K, Hersh PS. Patient subjective visual function after corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:615–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.11.029
Toprak I, Yaylali V, Yildirim C. Factors affecting outcomes of corneal collagen crosslinking treatment. Eye. 2014;28:41–46.
doi: 10.1038/eye.2013.224
Lamy R, Netto CF, Reis RG, Procopio B, Porco TC, Stewart JM, et al. Effects of corneal cross-linking on contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and corneal topography in patients with keratoconus. Cornea. 2013;32:591–6.
doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31826672e2
Caporossi A, Mazzotta C, Baiocchi S, Caporossi T. Long-term results of riboflavin ultraviolet a corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus in Italy: The Siena Eye Cross Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149:585–93.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.10.021
Greenstein SA, Hersh PS. Characteristics influencing outcomes of corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus and ectasia: Implications for patient selection. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:1133–40.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.06.007
Wisse RPL, Godefrooij DA, Soeters N, Imhof SM, Van, der Lelij A. A multivariate analysis and statistical model for predicting visual acuity and keratometry one year after cross-linking for keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157:519–.e2.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.11.001
Koc M, Uzel MM, Tekin K, Kosekahya P, Ozulken K, Yilmazbas P. Effect of preoperative factors on visual acuity, corneal flattening, and corneal haze after accelerated corneal crosslinking. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42:1483–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.08.017
Sarac O, Caglayan M, Cakmak HB, Cagil N. Factors influencing progression of keratoconus 2 years after corneal collagen cross-linking in pediatric patients. Cornea. 2016;35:1503–7.
doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001051
Hatch W, El-Defrawy S, Ong Tone S, Stein R, Slomovic AR, Rootman DS, et al. Accelerated corneal cross-linking: efficacy, risk of progression, and characteristics affecting outcomes. a large, single-center prospective study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020;213:76–87.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.01.006
Holopigian K, Bach M. A primer on common statistical errors in clinical ophthalmology. Doc Ophthalmol. 2010;121:215–22.
doi: 10.1007/s10633-010-9249-7
Koc M, Tekin K, Inanc M, Kosekahya P, Yilmazbas P. Crab claw pattern on corneal topography: Pellucid marginal degeneration or inferior keratoconus? Eye 2018;32:11–8.
doi: 10.1038/eye.2017.198
Martínez-Abad A, Piñero DP. Pellucid marginal degeneration: detection, discrimination from other corneal ectatic disorders and progression. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2019;42:341–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2018.11.010
Ertan A, Kamburoglu G, Colin J. Location of steepest corneal area of cone in keratoconus stratified by age using Pentacam. J Refract Surg 2009;25:1012–6.
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20091016-07
Greenstein SA, Fry KL, Hersh PS. Effect of topographic cone location on outcomes of corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia. J Refract Surg. 2012;28:397–405.
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20120518-02
Kymionis GD, Kontadakis GA, Hashemi KK. Accelerated versus conventional corneal crosslinking for refractive instability: an update. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2017;28:343–7.
Armstrong RA. Statistical guidelines for the analysis of data obtained from one or both eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2013;33:7–14.
doi: 10.1111/opo.12009
Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstem AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1373–9.
doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3
Lang PZ, Hafezi NL, Khandelwal SS, Torres-Netto EA, Hafezi F, Randleman JB. Comparative functional outcomes after corneal crosslinking using standard, accelerated, and accelerated with higher total fluence protocols. Cornea. 2019;38:433–41.
doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001878
Hersh PS, Lai MJ, Gelles JD, Lesniak SP. Transepithelial corneal crosslinking for keratoconus. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2018;44:313–22.
Stulting RD, Trattler WB, Woolfson JM, Rubinfeld RS. Corneal crosslinking without epithelial removal. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44:1363–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.07.029
Jafri B, Lichter H, Stulting RD. Asymmetric keratoconus attributed to eye rubbing. Cornea. 2004;23:560–4.
doi: 10.1097/01.ico.0000121711.58571.8d
Hafezi F, Hafezi NL, Pajic B, Gilardoni F, Randleman JB, Gomes JAP, et al. Assessment of the mechanical forces applied during eye rubbing. BMC Ophthalmol. 2020;20:301.
doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01551-5
Tian M, Ma P, Zhou W, Feng J, Mu G. Outcomes of corneal crosslinking for central and paracentral keratoconus. Medicine. 2017;96:e6247.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006247

Auteurs

Michael Mimouni (M)

Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. michael@intername.co.il.
Kensington Eye Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada. michael@intername.co.il.

Nir Sorkin (N)

Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kensington Eye Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Department of Ophthalmology, Tel Aviv Medical Center and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Tanya Trinh (T)

Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kensington Eye Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Wendy Hatch (W)

Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kensington Eye Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Neera Singal (N)

Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kensington Eye Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH