A 3-step treatment for keratoconus

Article

The arrival of advanced therapeutic modalities for keratoconus has provided ophthalmologists with a growing menu of treatment options. The author discusses the challenge of determining which treatment is the best to use and highlights his experience with a triple procedure and a four-stage approach.

Which treatment, when?

Along with the availability of newer, more sophisticated options for the management of keratoconus comes the challenge of determining which treatment to use and when to use it to deliver the best possible outcomes for each patient.

While ICR implantation alone helps to reduce corneal steepening and reduce refractive errors, many ophthalmologists recognize that combining treatments may help to further improve vision and slow progression. Further, a combination procedure is necessary in patients with loss of visual acuity and evidence of progression.

The effect of a triple procedure on refractive outcomes: Our experience

At the World Eye Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey, we conducted a prospective, case-series study, on 16 eyes of 10 patients with progressive keratoconus (defined as an increase in the cone apex keratometry of 0.75 D or alteration of 0.75 D in the spherical equivalent [SE] refraction in a period of at least 6 months), to evaluate the effect of a triple procedure comprising Keraring ICR implantation followed by CXL and topo-guided transepithelial PRK on visual acuity.

The mean interval between Keraring ICR implantation and CXL was 7 months, and the mean interval between CXL and topo-guided transepithelial PRK was 8.2 months. Postoperative visual acuity and pachymetry/topography results were evaluated after each stage of treatment, with a mean follow-up time of 6.2 months.

Findings showed that the mean LogMAR uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and mean corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were significantly improved (p < 0.05) from 1.14 ± 0.36 and 0.75 ± 0.24 preoperatively to 0.25 ± 0.13 and 0.13 ± 0.06, respectively, after completion of the three-step procedure. Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) also improved, from 0.05 and 0.2, preoperatively, to 0.7 and 0.9, respectively, after the final procedure. Moreover, both UDVA and CDVA, as well as UCVA and BCVA also improved significantly after the ICR implantation, indicating that the Keraring is an effective method for improving visual acuity in patients with progressive keratoconus.

Related Videos
ARVO 2024: Andrew D. Pucker, OD, PhD on measuring meibomian gland morphology with increased accuracy
Noel Brennan, MScOptom, PhD, a clinical research fellow at Johnson and Johnson
Elias Kahan, MD, a clinical research fellow and incoming PGY1 resident at NYU
Neda Gioia, OD, sat down to discuss a poster from this year's ARVO meeting held in Seattle, Washington
Eric Donnenfeld, MD, a corneal, cataract and refractive surgeon at Ophthalmic Consultants of Connecticut, discusses his ARVO presentation with Ophthalmology Times
John D Sheppard, MD, MSc, FACs, speaks with David Hutton of Ophthalmology Times
Marjorie Rah, OD, PhD, FAAO
Dr Richard Lindstrom, Chairman of Surface Ophthalmics and founder of Minnesota Eye Consultants, speaks about ASCRS
Josefina Botta, MD, MSc, at ASCRS 2024
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.