First experience with Oasis Collagen SOFT SHIELD® for epithelial defect after corneal cross-linking.

BACKGROUND: To investigate response of dissolving collagen contact lenses as an alternative for bandage contact lenses, for the post-interventional care of epithelial defects after corneal cross-linking (CXL) treatment for keratoconus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Follow-up visits were performed at day 1, 4 and 1 month after the intervention. We reviewed notes for re-epithelialization, comfort/pain and any untoward effects of Collagen SOFT SHIELD®. Assessment included visual acuity (VA), refraction (SE); corneal haze, epithelial erosion and pain status were assessed subjectively on a 4-point scale, from 0 (none) to 3 (severe). RESULTS: Thirty consecutive CXL patients with collagen shield application after CXL were included. Mean age was 28 years (range from 16 to 51 years old). Pre-CXL VA was 0.7 logMAR IQR 0.4-1.0; post-CXL VA at day 4 and month 1 was 0.6 logMAR IQR 0.4-0.9. Post-operative mean SE was 5.5D ± 4.1D. In all patients, the Collagen SOFT SHIELD® was completely dissolved at the 4-day follow-up visit. In most cases, epithelial defect was closed at day 4, on average 0.8 ± 0.5 days post-intervention; all epithelial defects were closed by month 1. Haze was minimal (mean haze score 1.4 ± 0.7 at day 4 and 1.0 ± 0.6 at 1 month). No adverse effects such as infection were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that Oasis Collagen SOFT SHIELD® is valuable and safe alternative to standard bandage contact lens for the treatment of epithelial defects. This outcome may be of particular interest in patients where the contact lens removal is likely to be problematic.

Peripheral corneal relaxing incisions based on anterior keratometry from Scheimpflug tomography versus Placido topography during standard cataract surgery.

AIM: To compare the outcomes of peripheral corneal relaxing incisions (PCRIs) based on standardized nomogram using keratometry from Scheimpflug and Placido machines during standard cataract surgery and to assess the astigmatism neutralization potential of PCRIs. METHODS: In this prospective, comparative case series of eyes with keratometric astigmatism between 0.75D to 2.5D, undergoing routine cataract surgery, PCRIs were performed using standardized nomogram and keratometric data from either Scheimpflug or Placido machines. A single eye of 42 consecutive patients was recruited in each group. Data on pre- and postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected DVA (CDVA), keratometry and refraction were assessed at 10 weeks postoperatively. Refractive and keratometric J0 J45 vectors were also analyzed. RESULTS: Data on 41 and 39 eyes were available in each group, respectively. There was a significant reduction in keratometric astigmatism in both groups. However, between Scheimpflug and Placido groups, there was no difference in postoperative logMAR UDVA [0.15 ± 0.18 vs 0.14 ± 0.16, p = 0.82] and CDVA [0.11 ± 0.11 vs 0.09 ± 0.10, p = 0.58], postoperative spherical equivalent [-0.34D ± 0.40D vs -0.50D ± 0.43D, p = 0.11], keratometric J0 [-0.03 ± 0.39 vs 0.01 ± 0.85, p = 0.67] and J45 [-0.03 ± 0.41 vs 0.01 ± 0.86, p = 0.65] and refractive J0 [0.05 ± 0.46 vs -0.03 ± 0.92, p = 0.47)] and J45 [-0.06 ± 0.49 vs -0.03 ± 0.99, p = 0.82] vectors, reduction of keratometric astigmatism [-0.40D ± 0.55D vs -0.35D ± 1.24D, p = 0.75] and the keratometric astigmatism neutralization potential [38.56 % ± 29.71 % vs 52.66 % ± 44.06 %, p = 0.12]. - CONCLUSIONS: Although PCRIs performed using Scheimpflug or Placido keratometry reduced the keratometric astigmatism significantly during standard cataract surgery. The astigmatic neutralization potentials of PCRIs comparing these two groups were not significantly different and remain low during the early postoperative period.