April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
Visual Rehabilitation after Crosslinking and INTACS for Keratoconus
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ana Maria Munoz
    Ophthalmology Department, Hospital Max Peralta, San Ramon de Tres Rios, Costa Rica
  • Rolando Mora
    Ophthalmology Department, Clínica UNIBE, San Jose, Costa Rica
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Ana Maria Munoz, None; Rolando Mora, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 5764. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Ana Maria Munoz, Rolando Mora; Visual Rehabilitation after Crosslinking and INTACS for Keratoconus. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):5764.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To document results of INTACS for keratoconus, stability over the first follow up year, visual rehabilitation and compare groups with or without crosslinking.

Methods: : This is a prospective, non randomized study of 47 eyes of 37 patients with keratoconus and contact lens intolerance. All were treated with INTACS with the manual technique by the same surgeon between September 2008 and September 2009 and had a 6 month minimum follow-up (mean 9,1 month). Only a group of 21 patients were treated with transepithelial crosslinking at 2-3 months postINTACS. UCVA, BCVA, Kmin, Kmax, and spherical equivalent (EE) were documented.

Results: : In the general group UCVA and BCVA (logMar)significantly improved from 0,96 and 0,30 to 0,48 and 0,19 (p 0,001 and 0,015), and spherical equivalent as well from -5,18 to -3,09 D (p 0,0003). Kmax and Kmin also improved from 53,49 D and 47,90D to 50,90D and 46,37 D (p = 0,0063 and 0,0484). None of the above had a significant difference during follow-up. A successful visual rehabilitation (BCVA 20/40) was achieved in 45 of 47 patients, 40% wearing glasses, 34% with soft contact lenses (spherical, toric, tricurve or piggy back), 25,5% without any kind of correction and none needing RGP. There was no difference between the groups with or without transepithelial crosslinking in any of the above (UCVA p 0,71; BCVA p 0,42; EE p 0,75, Kmax p 0,18; Kmin p 0,30).

Conclusions: : In our study patients improved in all variables and remained stable during follow- up, there was no significant difference between groups with or without crosslinking. Successful visual rehabilitation was obtained in 95,7% of patients.

Keywords: keratoconus • cornea: clinical science • refractive surgery: other technologies 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.