Retrospective study shows Ripasudil improves best-corrected visual acuity in corneal edema, suggesting a non-invasive treatment option.
Objectives: This study evaluated the therapeutic potential of topical Ripasudil hydrochloride hydrate in managing various forms of corneal edema. Methods: This retrospective study included 96 patients of 72.20 ± 10.52 years, with 53 females (55.2%) who were treated with Ripasudil for corneal edema, with a mean treatment duration of 5.2 ± 2.3 months, divided into four groups: post-cataract surgery (n = 32), Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD; n = 29), post-Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK; n = 25), and post-penetrating keratoplasty (PKP; n = 10). All patients were treated with Ripasudil, typically administered three times daily in the first week and twice daily in the following months. Clinical efficacy outcomes were assessed using changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central corneal thickness (CCT), and endothelial cell count (ECC) with specular microscopy, anterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT), and slit-lamp examination, while intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured using the iCare tonometer. Results: Ripasudil treatment led to a reduction in CCT and improvement in visual acuity across most groups, with minimal changes in ECC. CCT decreased by 30.44 μm (p < 0.001), 25.56 μm (p < 0.001), 8.41 μm (p = 0.05), and 6.80 μm (p > 0.1); visual acuity improved by 0.27 (p = 0.001), 0.18 (p = 0.02), 0.17 (p = 0.025), and 0.07 logMAR units (p > 0.1); and ECC changed by +7.0 (p > 0.1), 15.4 (p > 0.1), −7.6 (p > 0.1), and 2.3 cells/mm2 (p > 0.1) in the post-cataract surgery, FECD, post-DMEK, and post-PKP groups, respectively. Conclusions: No adverse events or progression of edema were recorded during the follow-up period. These findings support the role of Ripasudil as a non-invasive pharmacological approach to managing corneal edema and delaying or possibly avoiding surgical interventions, such as corneal transplantation, in selected cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Erdinest et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: