Minoru Tomita1, Mariko Mita2, Tukezban Huseynova2. 1. From Shinagawa LASIK Center (Tomita, Mita, Huseynova), Tokyo, Japan; the Department of Ophthalmology (Tomita), Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, China. Electronic address: tomita@shinagawa-lasik.com. 2. From Shinagawa LASIK Center (Tomita, Mita, Huseynova), Tokyo, Japan; the Department of Ophthalmology (Tomita), Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of accelerated corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) and conventional corneal CXL. SETTINGS: Private practice, Tokyo, Japan. DESIGN: Comparative study. METHODS: Eyes with keratoconus had accelerated CXL (KXL system; 15 minutes riboflavin [Vibex Rapid] presoak; 3 minutes 30 mW/cm(2) ultraviolet-A [UVA] light) or conventional CXL (CCL-365 Vario system; 30 minutes riboflavin [Vibex] presoak; 30 minutes 3 mW/cm(2) UVA light). The postoperative changes in visual acuity, keratometry readings, morphologic changes in the cornea, demarcation line existence, and corneal biomechanical responses with accelerated CXL and conventional CXL were compared. The follow-up was 1 year. RESULTS: The study enrolled 48 eyes of 39 patients; 30 eyes had accelerated CXL, and 18 eyes had conventional CXL. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative changes in uncorrected or corrected distance visual acuity or in the manifest refraction spherical equivalent between the 2 procedures. There were also no statistically significant differences in the postoperative changes in the keratometric readings from the Pentacam Scheimpflug device or the corneal biomechanical responses from a dynamic bidirectional applanation device (Ocular Response Analyzer) or a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer (Corvis ST) between the procedures. Similar morphologic changes and a pronounced demarcation line were apparent in eyes in both groups postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerated CXL and conventional CXL were both safe and effective. Accelerated CXL, being a fast procedure, appears to be more beneficial for patients and surgeons. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of accelerated corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) and conventional corneal CXL. SETTINGS: Private practice, Tokyo, Japan. DESIGN: Comparative study. METHODS: Eyes with keratoconus had accelerated CXL (KXL system; 15 minutes riboflavin [Vibex Rapid] presoak; 3 minutes 30 mW/cm(2) ultraviolet-A [UVA] light) or conventional CXL (CCL-365 Vario system; 30 minutes riboflavin [Vibex] presoak; 30 minutes 3 mW/cm(2) UVA light). The postoperative changes in visual acuity, keratometry readings, morphologic changes in the cornea, demarcation line existence, and corneal biomechanical responses with accelerated CXL and conventional CXL were compared. The follow-up was 1 year. RESULTS: The study enrolled 48 eyes of 39 patients; 30 eyes had accelerated CXL, and 18 eyes had conventional CXL. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative changes in uncorrected or corrected distance visual acuity or in the manifest refraction spherical equivalent between the 2 procedures. There were also no statistically significant differences in the postoperative changes in the keratometric readings from the Pentacam Scheimpflug device or the corneal biomechanical responses from a dynamic bidirectional applanation device (Ocular Response Analyzer) or a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer (Corvis ST) between the procedures. Similar morphologic changes and a pronounced demarcation line were apparent in eyes in both groups postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerated CXL and conventional CXL were both safe and effective. Accelerated CXL, being a fast procedure, appears to be more beneficial for patients and surgeons. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
Authors: Isaak Fischinger; Theo G Seiler; Karthiga Santhirasegaram; Moritz Pettenkofer; Chris P Lohmann; Daniel Zapp Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Hany A Khairy; Moataz F Elsawy; Khaled Said-Ahmed; Marwa A Zaki; Sameh S Mandour Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 1.779