June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
Comparison of standard versus accelerated corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus: 5-year outcomes from the Save Sight Keratoconus Registry
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Himal Kandel
    Save Sight Institute, Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Stephanie L Watson
    Save Sight Institute, Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Himal Kandel None; Stephanie Watson None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 2381 – A0184. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Himal Kandel, Stephanie L Watson; Comparison of standard versus accelerated corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus: 5-year outcomes from the Save Sight Keratoconus Registry. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):2381 – A0184.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Long term-effectiveness of standard (UVA intensity: 3mW/cm2, duration: 30 minutes) vs accelerated (UVA intensity: 9mW/cm2, duration: 10 minutes) corneal crosslinking (CXL) for stabilizing progressive keratoconus is unknown. This study aimed to compare the long-term (5 years) efficacy and safety of these protocols in keratoconus using the real-world data from the Save Sight Keratoconus Registry (SSKR).

Methods : Data from the routine clinical practice (15 sites across Australia, New Zealand and Italy) were captured through a web-based registry system for this observational study. A total of 100 eyes (75 patients) who had standard CXL and 76 eyes (66 patients) who had accelerated CXL, with a follow-up visit at five-year post-CXL were included. The mean age of the participants was 24.2±7.7 (standard 24.3 ± 7.3 vs accelerated 23.7±7.7) years, and 35.0% were female (standard 33.3% vs accelerated 34.8%). The outcome measures included changes in visual acuity, keratometry (maximum keratometry, Kmax; and central steepest keratometry, K2), minimum corneal thickness (MCT), and frequency of adverse events. The outcomes were compared using mixed-effects regression models adjusted for age, sex, visual acuity, keratometry, pachymetry, doctor, practice, and eye laterality.

Results : Both CXL protocols were effective and safe in stabilizing keratoconus and improving outcomes (Fig 1). The adjusted mean changes (95% CI) in outcomes were better in standard than in accelerated CXL [habitual visual acuity gain, 10.2 (7.9 to 12.5) vs 4.9 (1.6 to 8.2) logMAR letters; pinhole visual acuity gain, 5.7 (3.5 to 7.8) vs 0.2 (-2.2 to 2.5) logMAR letters; Kmax, -1.8 (-4.3 to 0.6) vs 1.2 (-1.5 to 3.9)D; K2, -0.9 (-2.2 to 0.3) vs 0.1 (-1.3 to 1.6)D; MCT, -3.0 (-13.7 to 7.7) vs -11.8 (-23.9 to 0.4) µm (p values for visual acuity, pinhole visual acuity, Kmax: <0.05; for K2 and MCT: >0.05)]. The frequency of adverse events at the 5-year follow-up visit was low in both groups [standard, 5 (5%; haze 3; scarring 1, epithelial defect 1) and accelerated 3 (3.9%; haze 2, scarring 1)].

Conclusions : This real-world observational study found that both standard and accelerated CXL were safe and effective procedures for stabilising keratoconus in the long term. The standard CXL resulted in greater improvements in visual acuity and keratometry.

This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.

 

Fig 1. Standard vs accelerated cross-linking outcomes

Fig 1. Standard vs accelerated cross-linking outcomes

×
×

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.

×