角膜同种异体基质内环节段(CAIRS)与人工合成节段:使用倾向得分匹配进行单节段比较分析。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Karen E Asfar, Yara Bteich, Anthony Abou Mrad, Jad F Assaf, Soosan Jacob, Farhad Hafezi, Shady T Awwad
{"title":"角膜同种异体基质内环节段(CAIRS)与人工合成节段:使用倾向得分匹配进行单节段比较分析。","authors":"Karen E Asfar, Yara Bteich, Anthony Abou Mrad, Jad F Assaf, Soosan Jacob, Farhad Hafezi, Shady T Awwad","doi":"10.3928/1081597X-20241002-02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare and assess the visual, refractive, and tomographic results of patients with corneal ectasia treated with either corneal allogenic intrastromal ring segments (CAIRS) or synthetic intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) without concomitant corneal cross-linking.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective cohort study, 34 eyes with CAIRS were matched to 34 eyes with ICRS using the propensity score matching technique. Each group was matched on a oneto-one basis using multiple parameters such as central corneal thickness, vertical and horizontal coma, maximum anterior keratometry, steepest keratometry, and age. Visual, refractive, topographic, and aberrometric data were measured at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initial preoperative parameters were similar between the two groups. Both groups showed significant improvement at last follow-up time in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (0.52 ± 0.23 to 0.16 ± 0.18 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR], <i>P</i> < .001; 0.44 ± 0.27 to 0.17 ± 0.21 logMAR, <i>P</i> < .001), topographic astigmatism (4.45 ± 2.75 to 3.14 ± 1.93 diopters [D], <i>P</i> = .001; 3.66 ± 2.22 to 2.36 ± 1.46 D, <i>P</i> = .007), maximum anterior keratometry (55.85 ± 7.53 to 50.69 ± 6.38 D, <i>P</i> < .001; 54.59 ± 6.95 to 50.71 ± 4.51 D, <i>P</i> = .003), and vertical coma (1.49 ± 1.02 to 0.38 ± 0.65 D, <i>P</i> < .001; 1.22 ± 0.75 to 0.52 ± 0.57 D, <i>P</i> < .001) for CAIRS and ICRS, respectively. The improvements observed in both groups at the last follow-up visit were comparable; however, the CAIRS group demonstrated a higher percentage of eyes gaining two or more Snellen lines of CDVA (60% vs 31.58%, <i>P</i> = .04), and a greater magnitude of reduction in vertical coma compared to the ICRS group, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. No major complications were observed with both groups, and one eye lost one CDVA line in the ICRS group. The mean thickness of the CAIRS segments at the last follow-up visit was 401.06 ± 100.12 µm, compared to 435.29 ± 26.19 µm for ICRS. Both CAIRS and ICRS demonstrated significant compression of stromal thickness above the segment (36.19% and 32.00%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When adequately matched for preoperative disease type and severity, eyes with CAIRS had a similar and notable clinical improvement compared to ICRS, with possibly better improvement in vertical coma and CDVA. <b>[<i>J Refract Surg</i>. 2024;40(11):e863-e876.]</b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":16951,"journal":{"name":"Journal of refractive surgery","volume":"40 11","pages":"e863-e876"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Corneal Allogenic Intrastromal Ring Segments (CAIRS) Versus Synthetic Segments: A Single Segment Comparative Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching.\",\"authors\":\"Karen E Asfar, Yara Bteich, Anthony Abou Mrad, Jad F Assaf, Soosan Jacob, Farhad Hafezi, Shady T Awwad\",\"doi\":\"10.3928/1081597X-20241002-02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare and assess the visual, refractive, and tomographic results of patients with corneal ectasia treated with either corneal allogenic intrastromal ring segments (CAIRS) or synthetic intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) without concomitant corneal cross-linking.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective cohort study, 34 eyes with CAIRS were matched to 34 eyes with ICRS using the propensity score matching technique. Each group was matched on a oneto-one basis using multiple parameters such as central corneal thickness, vertical and horizontal coma, maximum anterior keratometry, steepest keratometry, and age. Visual, refractive, topographic, and aberrometric data were measured at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initial preoperative parameters were similar between the two groups. Both groups showed significant improvement at last follow-up time in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (0.52 ± 0.23 to 0.16 ± 0.18 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR], <i>P</i> < .001; 0.44 ± 0.27 to 0.17 ± 0.21 logMAR, <i>P</i> < .001), topographic astigmatism (4.45 ± 2.75 to 3.14 ± 1.93 diopters [D], <i>P</i> = .001; 3.66 ± 2.22 to 2.36 ± 1.46 D, <i>P</i> = .007), maximum anterior keratometry (55.85 ± 7.53 to 50.69 ± 6.38 D, <i>P</i> < .001; 54.59 ± 6.95 to 50.71 ± 4.51 D, <i>P</i> = .003), and vertical coma (1.49 ± 1.02 to 0.38 ± 0.65 D, <i>P</i> < .001; 1.22 ± 0.75 to 0.52 ± 0.57 D, <i>P</i> < .001) for CAIRS and ICRS, respectively. The improvements observed in both groups at the last follow-up visit were comparable; however, the CAIRS group demonstrated a higher percentage of eyes gaining two or more Snellen lines of CDVA (60% vs 31.58%, <i>P</i> = .04), and a greater magnitude of reduction in vertical coma compared to the ICRS group, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. No major complications were observed with both groups, and one eye lost one CDVA line in the ICRS group. The mean thickness of the CAIRS segments at the last follow-up visit was 401.06 ± 100.12 µm, compared to 435.29 ± 26.19 µm for ICRS. Both CAIRS and ICRS demonstrated significant compression of stromal thickness above the segment (36.19% and 32.00%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When adequately matched for preoperative disease type and severity, eyes with CAIRS had a similar and notable clinical improvement compared to ICRS, with possibly better improvement in vertical coma and CDVA. <b>[<i>J Refract Surg</i>. 2024;40(11):e863-e876.]</b>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of refractive surgery\",\"volume\":\"40 11\",\"pages\":\"e863-e876\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of refractive surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20241002-02\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20241002-02","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较和评估角膜异位症患者接受角膜异体基质环切片(CAIRS)或人工合成角膜基质环切片(ICRS)治疗后的视觉、屈光和断层成像结果,但不同时进行角膜交联:在这项回顾性队列研究中,使用倾向得分匹配技术将 34 只接受 CAIRS 的眼睛与 34 只接受 ICRS 的眼睛进行匹配。每组采用多种参数(如角膜中央厚度、垂直和水平昏迷、最大前角膜度数、最陡角膜度数和年龄)进行一对一匹配。分别在基线、术后 1 周、1 个月、3 个月和 1 年测量视力、屈光、地形图和像差数据:结果:两组患者的术前初始参数相似。结果:两组患者的术前初始参数相似,在最后一次随访时,两组患者的矫正远视力(CDVA)(0.52 ± 0.23 至 0.16 ± 0.18 最小分辨角的对数[logMAR],P < .001;0.44 ± 0.27 至 0.17 ± 0.21 logMAR,P < .001)、地形散光(4.45 ± 2.75 至 3.14 ± 1.CAIRS和ICRS的垂直昏迷值分别为(1.49 ± 1.02 到 0.38 ± 0.65 D,P < .001;1.22 ± 0.75 到 0.52 ± 0.57 D,P < .001)和(1.49 ± 1.02 到 0.38 ± 0.65 D,P < .001;1.22 ± 0.75 到 0.52 ± 0.57 D,P < .001)。两组患者在最后一次随访时的视力改善情况相当;但是,与 ICRS 组相比,CAIRS 组视力提高两条或两条以上斯氏线的比例更高(60% vs 31.58%,P = .04),垂直昏迷减少的幅度更大,尽管这一差异未达到统计学意义。两组患者均未出现严重并发症,ICRS 组有一只眼睛的 CDVA 下降了一条线。最后一次随访时,CAIRS 节段的平均厚度为 401.06 ± 100.12 µm,而 ICRS 节段的平均厚度为 435.29 ± 26.19 µm。CAIRS 和 ICRS 节段上方的基质厚度均有明显压缩(分别为 36.19% 和 32.00%):结论:如果充分匹配术前疾病类型和严重程度,CAIRS 患者的临床改善与 ICRS 患者相似且显著,垂直昏迷和 CDVA 的改善可能更好。[J Refract Surg. 2024;40(11):e863-e876]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Corneal Allogenic Intrastromal Ring Segments (CAIRS) Versus Synthetic Segments: A Single Segment Comparative Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching.

Purpose: To compare and assess the visual, refractive, and tomographic results of patients with corneal ectasia treated with either corneal allogenic intrastromal ring segments (CAIRS) or synthetic intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) without concomitant corneal cross-linking.

Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 34 eyes with CAIRS were matched to 34 eyes with ICRS using the propensity score matching technique. Each group was matched on a oneto-one basis using multiple parameters such as central corneal thickness, vertical and horizontal coma, maximum anterior keratometry, steepest keratometry, and age. Visual, refractive, topographic, and aberrometric data were measured at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively.

Results: Initial preoperative parameters were similar between the two groups. Both groups showed significant improvement at last follow-up time in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (0.52 ± 0.23 to 0.16 ± 0.18 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR], P < .001; 0.44 ± 0.27 to 0.17 ± 0.21 logMAR, P < .001), topographic astigmatism (4.45 ± 2.75 to 3.14 ± 1.93 diopters [D], P = .001; 3.66 ± 2.22 to 2.36 ± 1.46 D, P = .007), maximum anterior keratometry (55.85 ± 7.53 to 50.69 ± 6.38 D, P < .001; 54.59 ± 6.95 to 50.71 ± 4.51 D, P = .003), and vertical coma (1.49 ± 1.02 to 0.38 ± 0.65 D, P < .001; 1.22 ± 0.75 to 0.52 ± 0.57 D, P < .001) for CAIRS and ICRS, respectively. The improvements observed in both groups at the last follow-up visit were comparable; however, the CAIRS group demonstrated a higher percentage of eyes gaining two or more Snellen lines of CDVA (60% vs 31.58%, P = .04), and a greater magnitude of reduction in vertical coma compared to the ICRS group, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. No major complications were observed with both groups, and one eye lost one CDVA line in the ICRS group. The mean thickness of the CAIRS segments at the last follow-up visit was 401.06 ± 100.12 µm, compared to 435.29 ± 26.19 µm for ICRS. Both CAIRS and ICRS demonstrated significant compression of stromal thickness above the segment (36.19% and 32.00%, respectively).

Conclusions: When adequately matched for preoperative disease type and severity, eyes with CAIRS had a similar and notable clinical improvement compared to ICRS, with possibly better improvement in vertical coma and CDVA. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(11):e863-e876.].

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
160
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Refractive Surgery, the official journal of the International Society of Refractive Surgery, a partner of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, has been a monthly peer-reviewed forum for original research, review, and evaluation of refractive and lens-based surgical procedures for more than 30 years. Practical, clinically valuable articles provide readers with the most up-to-date information regarding advances in the field of refractive surgery. Begin to explore the Journal and all of its great benefits such as: • Columns including “Translational Science,” “Surgical Techniques,” and “Biomechanics” • Supplemental videos and materials available for many articles • Access to current articles, as well as several years of archived content • Articles posted online just 2 months after acceptance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信