Issue: May 2017
May 02, 2017
1 min read
Save

Accelerated cross-linking protocol may be less effective for topographic flattening

Issue: May 2017
You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

Despite a shorter irradiation time and a higher UV dose, the accelerated corneal cross-linking protocol is less effective for topographic flattening when compared with the standard Dresden protocol for keratoconus, a study found.

Researchers compared the results of the accelerated cross-linking protocol and the conventional Dresden protocol in 28 eyes with primary keratoconus. Visual acuity, keratometric values and topographic parameters were evaluated.

Fifteen eyes in group 1 received the standard Dresden protocol, and 13 eyes in group 2 received the accelerated protocol. The standard Dresden protocol consisted of 0.1% riboflavin with 20% dextran 500 applied every 3 minutes for 30 minutes, for a dose of 5.4 J/cm2. The accelerated protocol consisted of 0.1% riboflavin with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose applied every 2 minutes for 10 minutes, for a dose of 6.6 J/cm2.

There were no statistically significant differences between either group in terms of visual acuity and refractive error. The steep keratometry value had a statistically significant decrease in group 1 of 0.55 ± 0.89 D compared with an increase in group 2 of 0.32 ± 0.86 D (P = .015). The mean keratometry value decreased by 0.44 ± 0.63 D in group 1 and increased by 0.11 ± 0.51 D in group 2 (P = .019).

“Although the accelerated protocol has advantages of reduced treatment time and less reduction in the postoperative corneal thickness, the conventional Dresden protocol had a better therapeutic effect of corneal flattening and should remain the standard procedure for keratoconus,” the researchers wrote. – by Robert Linnehan

Disclosure: The authors report no relevant financial disclosures.