Cargando…

Current clinical practice in corneal crosslinking for treatment of progressive keratoconus in four Nordic countries

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of progressive keratoconus with corneal crosslinking (CXL) in four Nordic countries. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all centres at which keratoconus patients are evaluated and CXL is performed in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gustafsson, Ingemar, Vicente, André, Bergström, Anders, Stenevi, Ulf, Ivarsen, Anders, Hjortdal, Jesper Østergaard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10084360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35811357
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.15213
_version_ 1785021724186640384
author Gustafsson, Ingemar
Vicente, André
Bergström, Anders
Stenevi, Ulf
Ivarsen, Anders
Hjortdal, Jesper Østergaard
author_facet Gustafsson, Ingemar
Vicente, André
Bergström, Anders
Stenevi, Ulf
Ivarsen, Anders
Hjortdal, Jesper Østergaard
author_sort Gustafsson, Ingemar
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of progressive keratoconus with corneal crosslinking (CXL) in four Nordic countries. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all centres at which keratoconus patients are evaluated and CXL is performed in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland. Nineteen of 20 centres participated. RESULTS: CXL is performed approximately 1300 times per year in these four Nordic countries with a population of around 21.7 million (2019). In most cases, progression is evaluated using the Pentacam HR, and the maximum keratometry reading (K (max)) is considered the most important parameter. The most frequently used treatment protocol in Scandinavia is the 9 mW/cm(2) epi‐off protocol, using hydroxylpropyl methylcellulose riboflavin (HPMC‐riboflavin). The participants deemed the following areas to be in most need of improvement: adaptation of the CXL protocol to individual patients (5/19), the development of effective epi‐on treatment protocols (4/19), optimal performance of CXL in thin corneas (4/19), improvement of the definition of progression (2/19), and diagnosis of the need for re‐treatment (2/19). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the diagnosis of progressive keratoconus and the diagnostic equipment used are similar. Treatment strategies are also similar but are suitably different to provide an interesting basis for the comparison of treatment outcomes. The high degree of participation in this survey indicates the possibility of future scientific collaboration on CXL focusing on the areas deemed to need improvement. It would also be of interest to evaluate the possibility of creating a Nordic CXL Registry. The high number of CXL treatments performed ensures sufficient statistical power to solve many questions. Such a registry could be an important contribution to evidence‐based care and would allow for longitudinal evaluation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10084360
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100843602023-04-11 Current clinical practice in corneal crosslinking for treatment of progressive keratoconus in four Nordic countries Gustafsson, Ingemar Vicente, André Bergström, Anders Stenevi, Ulf Ivarsen, Anders Hjortdal, Jesper Østergaard Acta Ophthalmol Original Articles PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of progressive keratoconus with corneal crosslinking (CXL) in four Nordic countries. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all centres at which keratoconus patients are evaluated and CXL is performed in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland. Nineteen of 20 centres participated. RESULTS: CXL is performed approximately 1300 times per year in these four Nordic countries with a population of around 21.7 million (2019). In most cases, progression is evaluated using the Pentacam HR, and the maximum keratometry reading (K (max)) is considered the most important parameter. The most frequently used treatment protocol in Scandinavia is the 9 mW/cm(2) epi‐off protocol, using hydroxylpropyl methylcellulose riboflavin (HPMC‐riboflavin). The participants deemed the following areas to be in most need of improvement: adaptation of the CXL protocol to individual patients (5/19), the development of effective epi‐on treatment protocols (4/19), optimal performance of CXL in thin corneas (4/19), improvement of the definition of progression (2/19), and diagnosis of the need for re‐treatment (2/19). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the diagnosis of progressive keratoconus and the diagnostic equipment used are similar. Treatment strategies are also similar but are suitably different to provide an interesting basis for the comparison of treatment outcomes. The high degree of participation in this survey indicates the possibility of future scientific collaboration on CXL focusing on the areas deemed to need improvement. It would also be of interest to evaluate the possibility of creating a Nordic CXL Registry. The high number of CXL treatments performed ensures sufficient statistical power to solve many questions. Such a registry could be an important contribution to evidence‐based care and would allow for longitudinal evaluation. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-07-10 2023-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10084360/ /pubmed/35811357 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.15213 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Acta Ophthalmologica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Gustafsson, Ingemar
Vicente, André
Bergström, Anders
Stenevi, Ulf
Ivarsen, Anders
Hjortdal, Jesper Østergaard
Current clinical practice in corneal crosslinking for treatment of progressive keratoconus in four Nordic countries
title Current clinical practice in corneal crosslinking for treatment of progressive keratoconus in four Nordic countries
title_full Current clinical practice in corneal crosslinking for treatment of progressive keratoconus in four Nordic countries
title_fullStr Current clinical practice in corneal crosslinking for treatment of progressive keratoconus in four Nordic countries
title_full_unstemmed Current clinical practice in corneal crosslinking for treatment of progressive keratoconus in four Nordic countries
title_short Current clinical practice in corneal crosslinking for treatment of progressive keratoconus in four Nordic countries
title_sort current clinical practice in corneal crosslinking for treatment of progressive keratoconus in four nordic countries
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10084360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35811357
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.15213
work_keys_str_mv AT gustafssoningemar currentclinicalpracticeincornealcrosslinkingfortreatmentofprogressivekeratoconusinfournordiccountries
AT vicenteandre currentclinicalpracticeincornealcrosslinkingfortreatmentofprogressivekeratoconusinfournordiccountries
AT bergstromanders currentclinicalpracticeincornealcrosslinkingfortreatmentofprogressivekeratoconusinfournordiccountries
AT steneviulf currentclinicalpracticeincornealcrosslinkingfortreatmentofprogressivekeratoconusinfournordiccountries
AT ivarsenanders currentclinicalpracticeincornealcrosslinkingfortreatmentofprogressivekeratoconusinfournordiccountries
AT hjortdaljesperøstergaard currentclinicalpracticeincornealcrosslinkingfortreatmentofprogressivekeratoconusinfournordiccountries