Study of effectiveness of various surgical options for keratoconus during the long-term follow-up in employees of the EMERCOM of Russia
https://doi.org/10.25016/2541-7487-2016-0-3-36-45
Abstract
Long-term results of various surgical options for keratoconus were comparatively assessed: crosslinking, epikeratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty. Keratoconus was diagnosed in 93 (1.87 %) of 4962 patients examined in the ophthalmology department at the Nikiforov Russian Center of Emergency and Radiation Medicine, EMERCOM of Russia. Surgical treatment was performed in 58 patients (87 eyes). Mean follow-up was 2 years (maximum 3.5 years) after the crosslinking, 9 years 11 months (maximum 14 years) after epikeratoplasty, 4 years 9 months (maximum 17 years) after penetrating keratoplasty. During the entire follow-up, the disease has not progressed in the treated patients. The choice of treatment option depended on the stage of keratoconus and the thickness and transparency of the cornea.
About the Authors
Mikhail Mikhailovich Dronov
The Nikiforov Russian Center of Emergency and Radiation Medicine, EMERCOM of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Igor Vyacheslavovich Golyshev
The Nikiforov Russian Center of Emergency and Radiation Medicine, EMERCOM of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Балашевич Л. И. Рефракционная хирургия. СПб. : СПбМАПО, 2002. 278 с.
2. Горскова Е. Н., Севостьянов Е. Н. Эпидемиология кератоконуса на Урале // Вестн. офтальмологии. 1998. Т. 114, № 4. С. 38-40.
3. Дронов М.М. Кератоконус: диагностика и лечение. СПб. : МедиКа, 2008. 120 с.
4. Дронов М. М. Руководство по кератопластике. СПб. : Влазипресс, 1997. 130 с.
5. Заболотний А. Г., Сахнов С. Н., Киселев А. В. Организация региональной службы тканевого донорства «Глазной банк», организационно-методическое обеспечение высокотехнологичной кератотрансплантологии в Краснодарском крае // Вестн. Тамбов. ун-та. Сер. : Естеств. и техн. науки. 2014. № 4. С. 1120-1123.
6. Кандаян М. А., Егиазарян А. В. К вопросу о заболеваемости кератоконусом и инвалидизации вследствие его среди подростково-призывной мо лодежи Республики Армении // Вестн. офтальмологии. 2001. Т. 117, № 3. С. 42-43.
7. Слонимский Ю. Б., Слонимский А. Ю. Кератоконус сегодня: проблемы и решения // Офтальмология. журн. 2006.№ 3. С. 159-161.
8. Филатов В. П. Роговица трупа как материал для пересадки // Совет. вестн. офтальмологии. 1934. №. 2. С. 222-225.
9. Филатов В. П. Оптическая пересадки роговицы и тканевая терапия. М.: Медгиз, 1945. 232 с.
10. Abu A., Frydman M., Marek D. [et al.]. Deleterious mutations in the Zinc-finger 469 gene cause brittle cornea syndrome // Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2008. Vol. 82, N 5. P. 1217-1222.
11. Amsler M. Quelques donnйes du probIиme du kиratocфne // Bull. Soc. Belge Ophthalmol. 1961. Vol. 129. P. 331-336.
12. Binder P. S. Analysis of ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis: risk factors // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2007. Vol. 33. P. 1530-1538.
13. Castroviejo R. Keratoplasty for the treatment of keratoconus // Trans. Am. Ophthalmol. Soc. 1948. Vol. 46. P 127-153.
14. Chen M. C., Lee N., Bourla N., Hamilton D. R. Corneal biomechanical measurements before and after laser in situ keratomileusis // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2008. Vol. 34. P 1886-1891.
15. Cursiefen C., Kuchle M. [et al.]. Changing indications for penetrating keratoplasty: histopathology of 1,250 corneal buttons // Cornea. 1998. Vol. 17, N 5. P. 468-470.
16. Elder M. J. Leber congenital amaurosis and it is association with keratoconus and keratoglobus // J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus. 1994. Vol. 31, N 1. P. 38-40.
17. Ghosheh F. R., Cremona F. A., Rapuano C. J. [et al.]. Trends in penetrating keratoplasty in the United States 1980-2005 // International ophthalmology. 2008. Vol. 28, N 3. P 147-153.
18. Haugen O. H., Hovding G., Eide G. E. Biometric measurements of the eyes in teenagers and young adults with Down syndrome // Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 2001. Vol. 79, N 6. P 616-625.
19. Hughes A. E., Bradley D. T, Campbell M. [et al.]. Mutation altering the miR-184 seed region causes familial keratoconus with cataract // Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2011. Vol. 89, N 5. P 628-633.
20. Jhanji V, Sharma N., Vajpayee R. B. Management of keratoconus: current scenario // Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2011. Vol. 95, N 8. P 1044-1050.
21. Kaufman H. E., Werblin T. P. Epikeratophakia for the treatment of keratokonus // Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1982. Vol. 93. P 342-347.
22. Kennedy R. H., Bourne W. M., Dyer J. A. A 48-year clinical and epidemiologic study of keratoconus // American journal of ophthalmology. 1986. Vol. 101, N 3. P. 267-273.
23. Kirwan C., O’Malley D., O’Keefe M. Corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in keratectasia: finding using the Reichert ocular response analyzer // Ophtalmologica. 2008. Vol. 222. P 334-337.
24. McDonald M. B., Kaufman H. E., Durrie D. S. [et al.]. Epikeratophakia for keratoconus. The nationwide study // Arch. Ophthalmol. 1986. Vol. 104, N 9. P1294-1300.
25. McMonnies C.W. Mechanisms of rubbing-related corneal trauma in keratoconus // Cornea. 2009. Vol. 28. P 607-615.
26. Newkirk K. M., Chandler H. L., Parent A. E. [et al.]. Ultraviolet radiation-induced corneal degeneration in 129 mice // Toxicol. Pathol. 2007. Vol. 35. P 819-826.
27. Owens H., Gamble G. A profile of keratoconus in New Zeland // Cornea. 2003. Vol. 22, N 2. P 122-125.
28. Rabinowich Y. S. Keratoconus // Surv. Ophthalmol. 1998. Vol. 42, N 4. P 297-319.
29. Rabinowitz Y. S. The genetics of keratoconus // Ophthalmol. Clin. North Am. 2003. Vol. 16, N 4. P 607-620.
30. Rabinowitz Y S., Maumenee I. H., Lundergan M. K. [et al.]. Molecular genetic analysis in autosomal dominant keratoconus // Cornea. 1992. Vol. 11, N 4.P 302-308.
31. Tuft S. J., Hassan H., George S. Keratoconus in 18 pairs of twins // Acta. Ophthalmol. 2012. Vol. 90, N 6. P 482-486.
32. Tuft S. J., Moodaley L. C., Gregory W. M. [et al.]. Prognostic factors for the progression of keratoconus // Ophthalmology. 1994. Vol. 101. P 439-447.
33. Vazirani J., Basu S. Keratoconus: current perspectives // Clin. Ophthalmol. 2013. Vol. 7. P 2019-2030.
34. Weed K. H., MacEwen C. J., Giles T. [et al.]. The Dundee University Scottish keratoconus study: Demographics, corneal signs, associated diseases, and eye rubbing // Eye (Lond). 2008. Vol. 22, N 4. P 534-541.
35. Werblin T. P., Kaufman H. E., Friedlander M. N., Granet N. Epikeratophakia: The surgical correction of aphakia. III. Preliminary results of a prospective clinical trial // Arch. Ophthalmol. 1981. Vol. 99, N 11. P 1957-1960.
36. Williams K. A., Lowe M., Bartlett C. [et al.]. Risk factors for human corneal graft failure within the Australian corneal graft registry // Transplantation. 2008. Vol. 86, N 12. P 1720-1724.
37. Williams K. A., Esterman A. J., Bartlett C. [et al.]. How effective is penetrating corneal transplantation? factors influencing long-term outcome in multivariate analysis // Transplantation. 2006. Vol. 81, N 6. P 896-901.
38. Wollensak G., Spoerl E., Seiler T Riboflavin/ ultraviolet-a-induced collagen crosslinking for the treatment of keratoconus // Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2003. Vol. 135, N 5. P 620-627.
39. Zadnik K., Barr J. T, Gordon M. O., Edrington T. B. Biomicroscopic signs and disease severity in keratoconus. Collaborative longitudinal evaluation of keratoconus (CLEK) study group // Cornea. 1996. Vol. 15, N 2. P 139-146.
Review
For citations:
Dronov M.M., Golyshev I.V. Study of effectiveness of various surgical options for keratoconus during the long-term follow-up in employees of the EMERCOM of Russia. Medicо-Biological and Socio-Psychological Problems of Safety in Emergency Situations. 2016;(3):36-45. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25016/2541-7487-2016-0-3-36-45
Views:
311
Email this article 