Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of accelerated (AXL) and standard corneal cross-linking (CXL) protocols in patients with progressive keratoconus. METHODS: Progressive keratoconus patients (14-40 years) received either standard-intensity CXL or high-intensity CXL (AXL). Corneas were exposed to ultraviolet-A 365 nm light for 30 minutes at an irradiance of 3.0 mW/cm in the standard CXL group and to ultraviolet-A 365 nm light for 10 minutes at 9.0 mW/cm in the AXL group. Changes in uncorrected visual acuity, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, refractive astigmatism, Kmax, and Kmean were used to determine treatment efficacy. Safety was determined by the incidence of adverse events and occurrence of loss of 2 or more lines of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity. Outcomes for CXL versus AXL were compared to determine differences in safety and efficacy between treatment groups. RESULTS: Thirty-six eyes of 34 patients (mean age, 27.9 ± 7.6 years) underwent AXL; 66 eyes of 53 patients (mean age, 30.0 ± 8.0 years) underwent standard-intensity CXL. There was no significant difference in any outcome measures between the groups. For AXL, there seemed to be more corneal flattening, with a statistically significant reduction in Kmean at 6 and 12 months postoperatively, when compared preoperatively (P < 0.01). There were no adverse events or complications in any patients. CONCLUSIONS: There was more corneal flattening in AXL patients 6 to 12 months postoperatively, suggesting that AXL may be a promising alternative to CXL in stabilizing corneal ectasia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cummings et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: