Healio
Healio
February 29, 2016
1 min read
Save

PRK combined with cross-linking may outperform cross-linking alone for treatment of keratoconus

Topography-guided PRK followed by corneal collagen cross-linking yielded a significantly greater improvement in vision than cross-linking alone in eyes with progressive keratoconus, a study found.

Both procedures yielded similarly stable postoperative outcomes.

The prospective study included 60 eyes of 48 patients. Thirty eyes underwent combined topography-guided PRK followed by cross-linking, and 30 eyes underwent cross-linking alone. Mean follow-up was 39 months.

Depth of cross-linking treatment was 269.8 µm in the cross-linking only group and 299.7 µm in the combined group; the difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

At final follow-up, mean logMAR uncorrected distance visual acuity improved by 9.1 letters in the cross-linking only group and 26.9 letters in the combined group. The between-group difference was statistically significant (P = .004).

Mean logMAR corrected distance visual acuity improved by 4.7 letters in the cross-linking only group and 8.6 letters in the combined group. The between-group difference was significant (P = .034).

Sixty-three percent of patients in the combined treatment group and 27% in the cross-linking only group gained two or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity; the difference was statistically significant (P = .009).

The difference between preoperative and postoperative spherical equivalent refraction and defocus equivalent refraction was significant in the combined treatment group (both P < .0001) but not in the cross-linking only group.

Also at final follow-up, steep and flat keratometry readings were significantly flatter in the combined treatment group than in the cross-linking only group.

Endothelial cell density was similar in both groups. – by Matt Hasson

Disclosure: The authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

Sources/Disclosures

Collapse
Source:

Kontadakis GA, et al. Ophthalmology. 2016;doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.010.