Initial results from mechanical compression of the cornea during crosslinking for keratoconus.

Jeannette Beckman Rehnman, Anders Behndig, Per Hallberg, Christina Lindén

Journal: Acta ophthalmologica 2015;92(7):644-9

PMID: 24628999

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare refractive changes after corneal crosslinking with and without mechanical compression of the cornea.

METHODS

In a prospective, open, randomized case-control study conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology, Umeå University Hospital, Sweden, sixty eyes of 43 patients with progressive keratoconus aged 18-28 years planned for corneal crosslinking and corresponding age- and sex-matched control subjects were included. The patients were randomized to conventional corneal crosslinking (CXL; n = 30) or corneal crosslinking with mechanical compression using a flat rigid contact lens sutured to the cornea during treatment (CRXL; n = 30). Subjective refraction and ETDRS best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), axial length measurement, keratometry and pachymetry were performed before and 1 and 6 months after treatment.

RESULTS

The keratoconus patients had poorer BSCVA, higher refractive astigmatism and higher keratometry readings than the control subjects at baseline (p < 0.01). In the CXL group, BSCVA increased from 0.19 ± 0.26 to 0.14 ± 0.18 logMar (p = 0.03), and the spherical equivalent improved from -1.9 ± 2.8 D to -1.4 ± 2.4 D (p = 0.03). Maximum keratometry readings decreased after CXL from 53.1 ± 4.9 D to 52.6 ± 5.2 D (p = 0.02), and the axial length decreased in the CXL group, likely due to post-treatment corneal thinning (p = 0.03). In the CRXL group, all the above variables were unaltered (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

At 6 months, the refractive results from CRXL did not surpass those of conventional CXL treatment. Rather, some variables indicated a slightly inferior effect. Possibly, stronger crosslinking would be necessary to stabilize the cornea in the flattened configuration achieved by the rigid contact lens.

© 2014 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Address: Department of Clinical Sciences, Ophthalmology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.