Aim To correlate the maximum anterior sagittal curvature (Kmax) changes and uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) in keratoconus patients after the cross-linking (CXL) procedure. Methods Forty-four eyes of 34 patients with keratoconus were analysed after the standard Dresden protocol CXL procedure had been performed. All patients underwent complete preoperative examination with a follow-up of 12 months with focus on UDVA, CDVA and Oculus Pentacam (Scheimpflug technology) analysis. We analysed and correlated K max changes in the postoperative period of 12 months together with visual acuity changes. Results Visual acuity improved significantly in the first 3 months after the procedure and even more significantly until the end of the first year. Even K max is the most relevant and most followed parameter for progression and regression of keratoconus, its lowering was not directly correlated with the visual acuity improvement (both uncorrected and corrected) in the first 6 months after corneal CXL procedure. K max was changed significantly in the period of 12 months post cross linking, but not in the first 6 months. Conclusion Corneal CXL should be considered as a procedure not just for corneal stiffening and stabilization, but also for visual acuity improvement in keratoconus patients.
Gordon-Shaag A, Millodot M, Shneor E, Liu Y. The genetic and environmental factors for keratoconus. Biomed Res Int. 2015. p. 795738.
2.
Godefrooij D, De Wit G, Uiterwaal C, Imhof C, Wisse R. Age-specific incidence and prevalence of keratoconus: a nationwide registration study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017. p. 169–72.
3.
Bialasiewicz A, Edward D. Corneal ectasias: study cohorts and epidemiology. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2013. p. 3–4.
4.
Wollensak G, Spoerl E, Seiler T. Riboflavin/ultraviolet-a-induced collagen crosslinking for the treatment of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003. p. 620–7.
5.
Wollensak G, Spoerl E, Seiler T. Stress-strain measurements of human and porcine corneas after riboflavin-ultraviolet-A-induced cross-linking. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003. p. 1780–5.
6.
Balparda K, Maldonado M. Corneal collagen crosslinking. A review of its clinical applications. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2017. p. 166–74.
7.
Badawi A, Samra A, W, Ghafar E, A. Clinical study predictive factors of the standard cross-linking outcomes in adult keratoconus: one-year follow-up. J Ophthalmol. 2017. p. 4109208.
8.
Mazzotta C, Wollensak G, Raiskup F, Pandolfi A, Spoerl E. The meaning of the demarcation line after riboflavin UVA corneal collagen crosslinking. Expert Rev Ophtalmol. 2019. p. 115–31.
9.
Aixinjueluo W, Usui T, Miyai T, Toyono T, Sakisaka T, Yamagami S. Accelerated transepithelial corneal cross-linking for progressive keratoconus: a prospective study of 12 months. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017. p. 1244–9.
10.
Subasinghe S, Ogbuehi K, Dias G. Current perspectives on corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018. p. 1363–84.
11.
Mazzotta C, Traversi C, Baiocchi S, Bagaglia S, Caporossi O, Villano A, et al. Corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and ultraviolet A light for pediatric keratoconus: ten-year results. Cornea. 2018. p. 560–6.
12.
Wittig-Silva C, Islam C, Wu F, Whiting T, Snibson M, G. A randomized, controlled trial of corneal collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconus: three-year results. Ophthalmology. 2014. p. 812–21.
13.
Uysal B, Sarac O, Yaman D, Akcay E, Cagil N. Optical performance of the cornea one year following keratoconus treatment with corneal collagen crosslinking. Curr Eye Res. 2018. p. 1415–21.
14.
Epstein R, Chiu Y, Epstein G. Pentacam HR criteria for curvature change in keratoconus and postoperative LASIK ectasia. J Refract Surg. 2012. p. 890–4.
15.
Prabhu P, Prasannkumary C, Jyothi P, Babitha V. Correlation between topographic color patterns, keratometric indices, and clinical features among young adults with keratoconus. Kerala J Ophthalmol. 2018. p. 193–7.
16.
Tan J, Nguyen V, Fenwick E, Ferdi A, Dinh A, Watson S. Vision-related quality of life in keratoconus: a save sight keratoconus registry study. Cornea. 2019. p. 600–4.
17.
Fink B, Wagner H, Steger M, Rosenstiel C, Roediger T, Mcmahon T, et al. Differences in keratoconus as a function of gender. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005. p. 459–68.
18.
Lamy R, Netto C, Reis R, Procopio B, Porco T, Stewart J, et al. Effects of corneal cross-linking on contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and corneal topography in patients with keratoconus. Cornea. 2013. p. 591–6.
19.
Saffarian L, Khakshoor H, Zarei G, Esmaily H. Corneal crosslinking for keratoconus in iranian patients: outcomes at 1 year following treatment. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2010. p. 365–8.
20.
Lombardo M, Serrao S, Lombardo G, Schiano L. Two-year outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of transepithelial corneal crosslinking with iontophoresis for keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019. p. 997–1000.
21.
Sedaghat M, Bagheri M, Ghavami S, Bamdad S. Changes in corneal topography and biomechanical properties after collagen cross linking for keratoconus: 1-year results. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2015. p. 212–9.
22.
Hersh P, Greenstein S, Fry K. Corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: oneyear results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011. p. 149–60.
23.
Toprak I, Yildirim C. Effects of corneal collagen cross-linking on corneal topographic indices in patients with keratoconus. Eye Contact Lens. 2013. p. 385–7.
24.
Hussain B, Saleh G, Sivaprasad S, Hammond C. Changing from snellen to logMAR: debate or delay? Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006. p. 6–8.
25.
Asri D, Touboul D, Fournié P, Malet F, Garra C, Gallois A, et al. Corneal collagen crosslinking in progressive keratoconus: multicenter results from the French national reference center for keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011. p. 2137–43.
26.
Greenstein S, Fry K, Hersh P. Corneal topography indices after corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: one-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011. p. 1282–90.
27.
Chang Y, Hersh S. Corneal collagen cross-linking: a review of 1-year outcomes. Eye Contact Lens. 2014. p. 335–45.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
