中国P站

Keratoconus; Corneal Cross-linking; Scleral Lenses; Intrastromal Corneal Ring Segments; Corneal Transplantation; Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty; Penetrating Keratoplasty; Patient-Reported Outcomes; Corneal Topography; Corneal Biomechanics

Introduction

The field of keratoconus management has seen substantial advancements, with a primary focus on early detection and timely intervention to effectively halt or decelerate disease progression. Corneal cross-linking (CXL) utilizing riboflavin has emerged as a foundational treatment, significantly enhancing stromal rigidity and improving biomechanical stability of the cornea. For individuals presenting with advanced stages of the disease or experiencing considerable visual impairment, intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) offer a therapeutic avenue to improve uncorrected visual acuity and correct refractive errors. Scleral lenses represent a highly effective strategy for visual rehabilitation, adept at masking irregular astigmatism and providing a stable refractive surface, particularly beneficial for patients with moderate to advanced keratoconus. Surgical interventions such as corneal transplantation, encompassing both deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) and penetrating keratoplasty (PK), are generally reserved for the most severe cases where all other treatment modalities have proven insufficient. [1] Corneal cross-linking (CXL) stands as a critical intervention in the management of keratoconus, with its principal aim being to bolster stromal rigidity to arrest or slow the progression of the condition. The widely adopted Dresden protocol, which involves riboflavin and ultraviolet A (UVA) irradiation, is well-established. However, ongoing research is exploring novel techniques and variations of CXL, including accelerated CXL and hypotonic CXL, with the goal of optimizing treatment efficacy and enhancing patient comfort, though comprehensive long-term comparative data is still being gathered. [2] Scleral lenses have proven to be a highly effective modality for achieving visual rehabilitation in patients diagnosed with keratoconus. Their design, which allows them to vault over the cornea and rest upon the sclera, creates a smooth refractive surface that effectively neutralizes the impact of irregular astigmatism and leads to improved uncorrected visual acuity. Continuous advancements in lens design and material technology are further contributing to enhanced comfort and oxygen permeability, solidifying their position as a viable option for individuals across a broad spectrum of keratoconus severity. [3] Intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) can serve as a valuable treatment option for carefully selected keratoconus patients, especially those with moderate disease severity who have not achieved optimal results with contact lens correction. The primary objective of ICRS implantation is to flatten the corneal apex and regularize its overall shape, thereby enhancing uncorrected visual acuity and reducing the dependence on spectacles or rigid gas permeable lenses. Achieving optimal outcomes hinges on meticulous patient selection and precise surgical technique. [4] Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) is increasingly being favored over penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for the surgical management of keratoconus. This preference stems from DALK's ability to preserve the recipient's endothelium, which substantially reduces the risks associated with endothelial rejection and graft failure, ultimately leading to superior long-term visual outcomes and enhanced refractive stability. DALK represents an effective treatment for advanced keratoconus when conservative management strategies have been unsuccessful. [5] The genetic underpinnings of keratoconus are notably complex, with a multitude of genes and biochemical pathways implicated in its pathogenesis. While not currently a direct management strategy, a thorough understanding of the genetic basis of keratoconus holds the potential for personalized risk assessment and the future development of gene-targeted therapies. Current research efforts are primarily concentrated on identifying novel genetic variants and elucidating their functional implications. [6] The combination of corneal cross-linking (CXL) with other refractive surgical procedures, such as wavefront-guided excimer laser ablation or intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS), represents an active area of ongoing research. While CXL's primary role is stabilization, these adjunctive procedures may contribute to improved visual acuity in specific patient populations. However, it is crucial to exercise caution regarding the timing and careful selection of patients to avoid compromising the established benefits of CXL. [7] Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are gaining significant recognition in the evaluation of treatment effectiveness for keratoconus management. Beyond objective measures like visual acuity, PROs effectively capture the patient's subjective experience, encompassing the impact of the condition and its treatment on their overall quality of life, daily functioning, and level of satisfaction. The use of standardized questionnaires is instrumental in quantifying these subjective benefits, thereby informing treatment decisions and facilitating the assessment of long-term treatment success. [8] Corneal topography and tomography are indispensable diagnostic and monitoring tools for keratoconus. State-of-the-art imaging devices furnish detailed information regarding corneal curvature, thickness, and biomechanical properties, which is crucial for the early detection of subtle changes and the precise assessment of disease progression. This detailed information is paramount in guiding therapeutic choices, particularly for interventions like corneal cross-linking and surgical procedures. [9] The biomechanical characteristics of the cornea play an integral role in the progression of keratoconus. Sophisticated assessment techniques, including corneal biomechanical imaging, offer profound insights into the integrity of the corneal stroma that extend beyond traditional topographic measurements. Comprehending these biomechanical properties can aid in predicting disease progression and customizing management strategies, most notably in informing the decision-making process for corneal cross-linking. [10]

Description

The modern management of keratoconus has evolved considerably, prioritizing early detection and intervention to curb or slow disease progression. Corneal cross-linking (CXL) using riboflavin remains a cornerstone therapy, enhancing stromal rigidity and the cornea's biomechanical stability. For patients with advanced disease or significant visual impairment, intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) can be employed to improve uncorrected visual acuity and address refractive errors. Scleral lenses provide excellent visual rehabilitation by compensating for irregular astigmatism and offering a stable refractive surface, especially for moderate to advanced cases. Corneal transplantation, including both deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) and penetrating keratoplasty (PK), is reserved for severe presentations where other treatments have been insufficient. [1] Corneal cross-linking (CXL) is a pivotal intervention for keratoconus, aimed at increasing stromal rigidity to halt or slow its advancement. The established Dresden protocol, involving riboflavin and UVA irradiation, is widely recognized. Emerging CXL techniques and variations, such as accelerated CXL and hypotonic CXL, are under investigation to optimize treatment effectiveness and patient comfort, although long-term comparative data is still accumulating. [2] Scleral lenses are a highly effective method for visual rehabilitation in keratoconus patients. Their capacity to vault over the cornea and rest on the sclera creates a smooth refractive surface, mitigating the effects of irregular astigmatism and improving uncorrected visual acuity. Continuous advancements in lens design and material technology contribute to enhanced comfort and oxygen permeability, making them a suitable option for a wide range of keratoconus severities. [3] Intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) can be a valuable treatment option for selected keratoconus patients, particularly those with moderate disease who have not responded optimally to contact lens correction. The goal of ICRS is to flatten the corneal apex and regularize its shape, thereby improving uncorrected visual acuity and reducing the need for spectacles or rigid gas permeable lenses. Careful patient selection and surgical technique are critical for achieving the best outcomes. [4] Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) is increasingly preferred over penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for surgical management of keratoconus. DALK preserves the recipient endothelium, significantly lowering the risk of endothelial rejection and graft failure, and leading to improved long-term visual outcomes and refractive stability. It is an effective treatment for advanced keratoconus when conservative measures have failed. [5] The role of genetics in keratoconus is complex, with numerous genes and pathways implicated in its development. While not a primary management strategy, understanding the genetic basis may facilitate personalized risk assessment and potentially lead to future gene-targeted therapies. Current research efforts focus on identifying new genetic variants and their functional consequences. [6] Combining corneal cross-linking with other refractive procedures, such as wavefront-guided excimer laser ablation or intrastromal corneal ring segments, is an area of active research. While CXL primarily aims for stabilization, these adjunctive procedures may help improve visual acuity in select patients. However, careful timing and judicious patient selection are essential to avoid compromising the benefits of CXL. [7] Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly vital in evaluating the effectiveness of keratoconus management. Beyond visual acuity, PROs capture the impact of the condition and its treatment on quality of life, daily functioning, and patient satisfaction. Standardized questionnaires aid in quantifying these subjective benefits, guiding treatment decisions and assessing long-term success. [8] Corneal topography and tomography are essential tools for diagnosing and monitoring keratoconus. Advanced imaging devices provide detailed information on corneal curvature, thickness, and biomechanical properties, enabling earlier detection of subtle changes and precise assessment of disease progression. This information is crucial for guiding treatment decisions, especially for CXL and surgical interventions. [9] The biomechanical properties of the cornea are integral to keratoconus progression. Advanced assessment techniques, such as corneal biomechanical imaging, offer deeper insights into stromal integrity beyond traditional topographic measurements. Understanding these properties can help predict disease progression and tailor management strategies, particularly in guiding the decision for corneal cross-linking. [10]

Conclusion

Keratoconus management has advanced significantly, focusing on early detection and intervention. Corneal cross-linking (CXL) with riboflavin is a cornerstone for stabilizing the cornea. For advanced cases, intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) can improve vision. Scleral lenses offer excellent visual rehabilitation by masking irregular astigmatism. Corneal transplantation (DALK and PK) is reserved for severe cases. Emerging CXL techniques and combined therapies are under investigation. Genetics plays a complex role, and advanced imaging like topography and tomography are crucial for diagnosis and monitoring. Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly important for assessing treatment success. Understanding corneal biomechanics aids in predicting progression and guiding treatment decisions.

References

1. Mohammad AK, Anas A, Ahmad A. (2021) .Optometry: Open Access 6:15-22.

   , ,

2. Elias RA, Peter SH, Edward JH. (2023) .JAMA Ophthalmology 141:1887-1895.

   , ,

3. Vishal JP, Nita S, Shlomi B. (2022) .Clinical Ophthalmology 16:2157-2170.

   , ,

4. Ravi MD, C LC, Yannek C. (2020) .Cornea 39:1153-1163.

   , ,

5. Amr AA, Ahmad AE, Mostafa MA. (2023) .Ophthalmology 130:1106-1117.

   , ,

6. R FF, F MO, M KY. (2022) .Genes 13:113.

   , ,

7. Shazia RK, Tanya MZ, Jason JN. (2023) .Eye and Contact Lens 49:455-463.

   , ,

8. Sara GA, Fatima HA, Khalid FA. (2020) .Ophthalmic Epidemiology 27:346-355.

   , ,

9. Fahad AA, Abdullah SA, Mohammed HA. (2022) .Journal of Optometry 15:237-244.

   , ,

10. Hassan MA, Saleh AA, Omar MA. (2021) .Translational Vision Science & Technology 10:25.

    , ,