Cargando…

A novel Q‐value‐based nomogram for single intracorneal ring segment implantation versus standard manufacturer's nomogram combined with accelerated cross‐linking for treatment of keratoconus: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of implanting a single Keraring segment according to a novel Q‐value‐based nomogram (QN) to that of segment implantation according to the manufacturer's standard nomogram (SN), for keratoconus treatment. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled tri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Iqbal, Mohammed, Elmassry, Ahmed, Mounir, Amr, Ibrahim, Ola, Soliman, Ashraf
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8359282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32930519
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.14611
_version_ 1783737513864593408
author Iqbal, Mohammed
Elmassry, Ahmed
Mounir, Amr
Ibrahim, Ola
Soliman, Ashraf
author_facet Iqbal, Mohammed
Elmassry, Ahmed
Mounir, Amr
Ibrahim, Ola
Soliman, Ashraf
author_sort Iqbal, Mohammed
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of implanting a single Keraring segment according to a novel Q‐value‐based nomogram (QN) to that of segment implantation according to the manufacturer's standard nomogram (SN), for keratoconus treatment. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial of 104 patients (104 eyes) with Amsler‐Krumeich grade 1 or 2 keratoconus, and type 1 or 2 cone asymmetry determined according to manufacturer's classification. They were randomly distributed into two groups: group A patients (n = 52) underwent Keraring implantation according to the SN, and group B patients (n = 52) underwent implantation of a single (210° arc‐length) Keraring segment according to the QN. Both treatments were combined with accelerated transepithelial cross‐linking, and follow‐up was 6 months. Main outcome measures were preoperative and postoperative visual acuity, subjective refraction and corneal topography. RESULTS: At postoperative month 6, group B exhibited statistically significantly higher values of mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), sphere, K2, K‐average, K‐max and Q‐anterior (p = 0.02, 0.01, 0.002, 0.001, 0.0001 and 0.03, respectively) compared to that of group A. However, group A exhibited better refractive cylindrical improvements (p = 0.04). In group A, we documented spontaneous extrusion of one Keraring segment. CONCLUSION: Single 210° arc‐length segment implantation using our objective QN was more efficacious for keratoconus treatment than using the subjective SN. The nomograms were comparable when the Q‐anterior value was >−1.00; however, the QN was superior to the SN when the Q‐anterior value was ≤−1.00. The QN yielded greater postoperative UDVA and smoother corneal remodelling than did the SN for treatment of grade 1 and 2 keratoconic eyes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8359282
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83592822021-08-17 A novel Q‐value‐based nomogram for single intracorneal ring segment implantation versus standard manufacturer's nomogram combined with accelerated cross‐linking for treatment of keratoconus: a randomized controlled trial Iqbal, Mohammed Elmassry, Ahmed Mounir, Amr Ibrahim, Ola Soliman, Ashraf Acta Ophthalmol Original Articles PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of implanting a single Keraring segment according to a novel Q‐value‐based nomogram (QN) to that of segment implantation according to the manufacturer's standard nomogram (SN), for keratoconus treatment. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial of 104 patients (104 eyes) with Amsler‐Krumeich grade 1 or 2 keratoconus, and type 1 or 2 cone asymmetry determined according to manufacturer's classification. They were randomly distributed into two groups: group A patients (n = 52) underwent Keraring implantation according to the SN, and group B patients (n = 52) underwent implantation of a single (210° arc‐length) Keraring segment according to the QN. Both treatments were combined with accelerated transepithelial cross‐linking, and follow‐up was 6 months. Main outcome measures were preoperative and postoperative visual acuity, subjective refraction and corneal topography. RESULTS: At postoperative month 6, group B exhibited statistically significantly higher values of mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), sphere, K2, K‐average, K‐max and Q‐anterior (p = 0.02, 0.01, 0.002, 0.001, 0.0001 and 0.03, respectively) compared to that of group A. However, group A exhibited better refractive cylindrical improvements (p = 0.04). In group A, we documented spontaneous extrusion of one Keraring segment. CONCLUSION: Single 210° arc‐length segment implantation using our objective QN was more efficacious for keratoconus treatment than using the subjective SN. The nomograms were comparable when the Q‐anterior value was >−1.00; however, the QN was superior to the SN when the Q‐anterior value was ≤−1.00. The QN yielded greater postoperative UDVA and smoother corneal remodelling than did the SN for treatment of grade 1 and 2 keratoconic eyes. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-09-15 2021-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8359282/ /pubmed/32930519 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.14611 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Acta Ophthalmologica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Iqbal, Mohammed
Elmassry, Ahmed
Mounir, Amr
Ibrahim, Ola
Soliman, Ashraf
A novel Q‐value‐based nomogram for single intracorneal ring segment implantation versus standard manufacturer's nomogram combined with accelerated cross‐linking for treatment of keratoconus: a randomized controlled trial
title A novel Q‐value‐based nomogram for single intracorneal ring segment implantation versus standard manufacturer's nomogram combined with accelerated cross‐linking for treatment of keratoconus: a randomized controlled trial
title_full A novel Q‐value‐based nomogram for single intracorneal ring segment implantation versus standard manufacturer's nomogram combined with accelerated cross‐linking for treatment of keratoconus: a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr A novel Q‐value‐based nomogram for single intracorneal ring segment implantation versus standard manufacturer's nomogram combined with accelerated cross‐linking for treatment of keratoconus: a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed A novel Q‐value‐based nomogram for single intracorneal ring segment implantation versus standard manufacturer's nomogram combined with accelerated cross‐linking for treatment of keratoconus: a randomized controlled trial
title_short A novel Q‐value‐based nomogram for single intracorneal ring segment implantation versus standard manufacturer's nomogram combined with accelerated cross‐linking for treatment of keratoconus: a randomized controlled trial
title_sort novel q‐value‐based nomogram for single intracorneal ring segment implantation versus standard manufacturer's nomogram combined with accelerated cross‐linking for treatment of keratoconus: a randomized controlled trial
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8359282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32930519
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.14611
work_keys_str_mv AT iqbalmohammed anovelqvaluebasednomogramforsingleintracornealringsegmentimplantationversusstandardmanufacturersnomogramcombinedwithacceleratedcrosslinkingfortreatmentofkeratoconusarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT elmassryahmed anovelqvaluebasednomogramforsingleintracornealringsegmentimplantationversusstandardmanufacturersnomogramcombinedwithacceleratedcrosslinkingfortreatmentofkeratoconusarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mouniramr anovelqvaluebasednomogramforsingleintracornealringsegmentimplantationversusstandardmanufacturersnomogramcombinedwithacceleratedcrosslinkingfortreatmentofkeratoconusarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ibrahimola anovelqvaluebasednomogramforsingleintracornealringsegmentimplantationversusstandardmanufacturersnomogramcombinedwithacceleratedcrosslinkingfortreatmentofkeratoconusarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT solimanashraf anovelqvaluebasednomogramforsingleintracornealringsegmentimplantationversusstandardmanufacturersnomogramcombinedwithacceleratedcrosslinkingfortreatmentofkeratoconusarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT iqbalmohammed novelqvaluebasednomogramforsingleintracornealringsegmentimplantationversusstandardmanufacturersnomogramcombinedwithacceleratedcrosslinkingfortreatmentofkeratoconusarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT elmassryahmed novelqvaluebasednomogramforsingleintracornealringsegmentimplantationversusstandardmanufacturersnomogramcombinedwithacceleratedcrosslinkingfortreatmentofkeratoconusarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mouniramr novelqvaluebasednomogramforsingleintracornealringsegmentimplantationversusstandardmanufacturersnomogramcombinedwithacceleratedcrosslinkingfortreatmentofkeratoconusarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ibrahimola novelqvaluebasednomogramforsingleintracornealringsegmentimplantationversusstandardmanufacturersnomogramcombinedwithacceleratedcrosslinkingfortreatmentofkeratoconusarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT solimanashraf novelqvaluebasednomogramforsingleintracornealringsegmentimplantationversusstandardmanufacturersnomogramcombinedwithacceleratedcrosslinkingfortreatmentofkeratoconusarandomizedcontrolledtrial