Our results suggest that accelerated PACK-CXL may provide an antimicrobial effect similar to the 1 low-intensity, slow setting (30 minutes at 3 mW/cm) and may be used as additional treatment in moderate-sized therapy-resistant infectious keratitis.
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of accelerated photoactivated chromophore for keratitis corneal cross-linking (PACK-CXL) as an adjunct treatment for bacterial keratitis (PACK-CXL plus standard antibiotic therapy) for patients receiving only standard antibiotic therapy. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of outcomes of patients with moderate infectious presumed bacterial keratitis (ulcer diameter 2 to 7 mm and stromal depth < 300 µm) were compared before and after initiation of a new treatment protocol of PACK-CXL in addition to standard antibiotic treatment. RESULTS: A total of 70 eyes of 70 patients were included: 39 eyes in the PACK-CXL plus antibiotic (PACK-ABX) group and 31 eyes in the antibiotic only (ABX) control group. The PACK-ABX group showed shorter times to complete reepithelialization (9.3 ± 6.0 vs 16.0 ± 12.7 days, P = .01) and did not require tectonic emergency keratoplasty (0% versus 19.4%, P = .006). The PACK-ABX group also showed a higher percentage of eyes with complete reepithelialization in 6 days or less (46.2% vs 6.5%, P < .001) and a trend for shorter hospitalizations (6.3 ± 5.0 vs 8.5 ± 4.5 days, P = .06). A multivariate analysis controlling for age showed that PACK-ABX treatment remained significantly associated with early ulcer reepithelialization (odds ratio = 0.09, 95% confidence interval = 0.02 to 0.48, P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: This study validates previous findings regarding the use of accelerated PACK-CXL in the treatment of bacterial keratitis. Adding PACK-CXL improved clinical outcomes (reducing healing time) when compared to antibiotics alone. [ J Refract Surg . 2020;36(4):258–264.]
Background Infectious keratitis is a major cause of global blindness. We tested whether standalone photoactivated chromophore corneal cross-linking (PACK-CXL) may be an effective first-line treatment in early to moderate infectious keratitis, compared with standard antimicrobial treatment. Methods This is a randomized, controlled, multinational phase 3 clinical trial. Participants in five centers in Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, and China, aged ≥ 18 years, with infectious keratitis of presumed bacterial, fungal, or mixed origin, were randomly assigned (1:1) to PACK-CXL, or antimicrobial therapy. Outcomes measures included healing, defined as time to re-epithelialization of the corneal epithelial defect in the absence of inflammatory activity in the anterior chamber and clearance of stromal infiltrates. Treatment success was defined as the complete resolution of signs of infection. Results Between July 21, 2016, and March 4, 2020, participants were randomly assigned to receive PACK-CXL (n = 18) or antimicrobial therapy per American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) guidelines (n = 21). No participants were lost to follow-up. Four eyes were excluded from the epithelialization time analysis due to treatment failure: two in the antimicrobial therapy group, and two in the PACK-CXL group. Success rates were 88.9% (16/18 patients) in the PACK-CXL group and 90.5% (19/21 patients) in the medication group. There was no significant difference in time to complete corneal re-epithelialization (P = 0.828) between both treatment groups. Conclusions PACK-CXL may be an alternative to antimicrobial drugs for first-line and standalone treatment of early to moderate infectious keratitis of bacterial or fungal origin. Trial registration This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, trial registration number: NCT02717871
Women with latent syphilis are at risk for adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes, including fetal growth restriction. Careful surveillance of these high-risk pregnancies should be considered.
Purpose: To describe the viscoelastic marking technique, a novel marking technique of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) grafts that enables usage of a single donor cornea for 2 surgeries—one that uses Descemet membrane and endothelium (DMEK) and the other using the stroma and Bowman layer. Methods: A retrospective case analysis was performed on 26 eyes of 26 consecutive patients who underwent DMEK using the “viscoelastic marking technique.” In this novel technique, an ophthalmic viscoelastic device (Healon 5) is placed over the endothelial side. Descemet membrane is then folded in half over the ophthalmic viscoelastic device with the stromal side up, and the F mark is drawn on the stromal side of the folded Descemet membrane. Primary outcome was best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, and secondary outcomes included graft detachment and rebubble rate, graft failure, and endothelial cell density. Results: Mean best spectacle-corrected visual acuity improved significantly from 1.0 ± 0.7 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR) before the surgery to 0.9 ± 0.7 LogMAR, 0.5 ± 0.6 LogMAR, 0.4 ± 0.2 LogMAR, and 0.4 ± 0.4 LogMAR at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, respectively. Seven eyes (27%) had partial graft detachment that required air injection. Primary failure occurred in 3 eyes (11%). There were no free-floating donors or recognized inverted donors. The endothelial cell density loss at 12 months after surgery was a cell-loss rate of 38.3%. Conclusions: The viscoelastic marking technique is a simple, approachable, and safe technique for marking DMEK grafts while preserving the anterior cornea for additional surgery.
add state sales tax. The GST tax of 7% must be added to all orders shipped to Canada (Wolters Kluwer Health's GST Identification #895524239, Publications Mail Agreement #1119672). Subscription prices outside the United States must be prepaid. Prices subject to change without notice. Prices include shipping and handling. Visit us online at www.lww.com.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.