Xuan-Li Liu1, Ping-Hua Li1, Pierre Fournie2, François Malecaze2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400042, China. 2. Department of Ophtalmology, CHU of Toulouse, Hopital Purpan, Toulouse 31300, France.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and stability of intrastromal corneal ring segment (ICRs) implantation with cross-linking (CXL) using different sequence and timing. METHODS: In this single retrospective study, 86 keratoconic eyes subjected the ICRs implantation. We analyzed only 41 eyes that had complete follow-ups. They were divided into three groups: ICRs implantation was applied only (group normal), ICRs first followed by CXL immediately (group CXL-S), CXL first followed by ICRs long after (group CXL-B). The visual acuity, refractive results, keratometry were compared preoperatively and 1y postoperatively. Their differences among the three groups were also analyzed. RESULTS: Group normal comprised 25 eyes, group CXL-S 8 eyes, and group CXL-B 8 eyes. There were improvements in the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and the mean corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) compared preoperatively and 1y postoperatively {UDVA: 0.31 (P=0.030) logarithmic minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] group normal, 0.4 (P=0.020) group CXL-S, 0.45 (P=0.001) group CXL-B; CDVA: 0.21 logMAR (P=0.013) group normal, 0.30 (P=0.036) group CXL-S; 0.26 (P=0.000) group CXL-B}. The refractive and topographic outcomes also showed improvements. In terms of comparisons among the three groups, all the P values were above 0.05, showing no significant difference. But only group CXL-B had improvement in UDVA and CDVA for all the patients. CONCLUSION: With safety and good visual outcomes, ICRs implantation is a viable alternative for keratoconus. No significant difference was found among these three groups.
AIM: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and stability of intrastromal corneal ring segment (ICRs) implantation with cross-linking (CXL) using different sequence and timing. METHODS: In this single retrospective study, 86 keratoconic eyes subjected the ICRs implantation. We analyzed only 41 eyes that had complete follow-ups. They were divided into three groups: ICRs implantation was applied only (group normal), ICRs first followed by CXL immediately (group CXL-S), CXL first followed by ICRs long after (group CXL-B). The visual acuity, refractive results, keratometry were compared preoperatively and 1y postoperatively. Their differences among the three groups were also analyzed. RESULTS: Group normal comprised 25 eyes, group CXL-S 8 eyes, and group CXL-B 8 eyes. There were improvements in the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and the mean corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) compared preoperatively and 1y postoperatively {UDVA: 0.31 (P=0.030) logarithmic minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] group normal, 0.4 (P=0.020) group CXL-S, 0.45 (P=0.001) group CXL-B; CDVA: 0.21 logMAR (P=0.013) group normal, 0.30 (P=0.036) group CXL-S; 0.26 (P=0.000) group CXL-B}. The refractive and topographic outcomes also showed improvements. In terms of comparisons among the three groups, all the P values were above 0.05, showing no significant difference. But only group CXL-B had improvement in UDVA and CDVA for all the patients. CONCLUSION: With safety and good visual outcomes, ICRs implantation is a viable alternative for keratoconus. No significant difference was found among these three groups.
Entities:
Keywords:
cross-linking; intrastromal corneal ring segment; keratoconus
Authors: Konstantinos D Andreanos; Kate Hashemi; Myrsini Petrelli; Konstantinos Droutsas; Ilias Georgalas; George D Kymionis Journal: Ophthalmol Ther Date: 2017-07-28