UK Keratoconus Self-Help and Support Association

CORNEAL COLLAGEN CROSSLINKING WITH RIBOFLAVIN (C3R) AVAILABLE AT G.G.S.I.EYE RESEARCH & CURE CENTRE , DELHI,INDIA,visioncareindia.com


The latest revolutionary Keratoconus treatment is C3R (Corneal Collagen Crosslinking with Riboflavin) that has been proven to strengthen the weak corneal structure by increasing collagen crosslinking, which are the natural “anchorsâ€

Thanks for the info Hanspal,
Lenses:

Most importantly, they do not arrest the progress of disease. Also there can be scarring as a result of contact lens wear causes problems of its own.

Intacs:

However intacs do not inherently alter the biomechanical structural integrity of the cornea and thus may not be a permanent solution. If the refraction changes over a period of time after inserting the intacs rings they would need to be removed.

Doesnt anyone else find it wierd that the only time we see negative comments openly printed regarding the traditional KC treatments ie: graft, contact lenses and more recently Intacs... is now when a new, possibly extremely lucrative, option comes along?

A new comer to Keratoconus could search for hours on the internet and only find a handful of adverse reports posted by the respective specialists that perform these traditional treatments.

If cross-linking does prove to be all that it appears to be how I wonder how will it be 'marketed' to we the keratoconus public? Especially in the case of presenting it as a possible alternative to graft in certain cases (bearing in mind that graft already has a 95% advertized success rate it will be a very hard act to follow).
Regards,
Hari

Whilst great information it does worry me that things like this aren't mentioned, and this is not an option for everyone suffering with KC


Safety of UVA-Riboflavin Cross-Linking of the Cornea.

Review

Cornea. 26(4):385-389, May 2007.
Spoerl, Eberhard PhD *; Mrochen, Michael PhD +; Sliney, David PhD ++; Trokel, Stephen MD [S]; Seiler, Theo MD, PhD +
Abstract:
Purpose: To study potential damage to ocular tissue during corneal collagen cross-linking (X-linking) by means of the riboflavin/UVA (370 nm) approach.

Methods: Comparison of the currently used technique with officially accepted guidelines regarding direct UV damage and the damage created by the induced free radicals (photochemical damage).

Results: The currently used UVA radiant exposure of 5.4 mJ/cm2 and the corresponding irradiance of 3 mW/cm2 is below the known damage thresholds of UVA for the corneal endothelium, lens, and retina. Regarding the photochemical damage caused by the free radicals, the damage thresholds for keratocytes and endothelial cells are 0.45 and 0.35 mW/cm2, respectively. In a 400-[mu]m-thick cornea saturated with riboflavin, the irradiance at the endothelial level was 0.18 mW/cm2, which is a factor of 2 smaller than the damage threshold.

Conclusions: After corneal X-linking, the stroma is depopulated of keratocytes ~300 [mu]m deep. Repopulation of this area takes up to 6 months. As long as the cornea treated has a minimum thickness of 400 [mu]m (as recommended), the corneal endothelium will not experience damage, nor will deeper structures such as lens and retina. The light source should provide a homogenous irradiance, avoiding hot spots.

(C) 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

I think it should be pointed out that the original post in this thread by Dr. Singh is effectively an advertisement for the services of his own clinic.

Whilst not making any judgement whatsoever of Dr. Singh, I would observe that it could be in his interests to promote the newer treatments.

However, it has been pointed out recently that the traditional remedies aren't all perfect, and the only reason why the problems were not highlighted was because there was no viable alternative.

It makes you think!

we have series of patients with 2 year follow up till now no one developed scarring plus
there is improvement of vision i.e patient get rid of RGP lenses plus there is decrease in keratometry reading.definately there is arrest of disease.

Hari Navarro wrote:Thanks for the info Hanspal,
Lenses:

Most importantly, they do not arrest the progress of disease. Also there can be scarring as a result of contact lens wear causes problems of its own.

Intacs:

However intacs do not inherently alter the biomechanical structural integrity of the cornea and thus may not be a permanent solution. If the refraction changes over a period of time after inserting the intacs rings they would need to be removed.

Doesnt anyone else find it wierd that the only time we see negative comments openly printed regarding the traditional KC treatments ie: graft, contact lenses and more recently Intacs... is now when a new, possibly extremely lucrative, option comes along?

A new comer to Keratoconus could search for hours on the internet and only find a handful of adverse reports posted by the respective specialists that perform these traditional treatments.

If cross-linking does prove to be all that it appears to be how I wonder how will it be 'marketed' to we the keratoconus public? Especially in the case of presenting it as a possible alternative to graft in certain cases (bearing in mind that graft already has a 95% advertized success rate it will be a very hard act to follow).
Regards,
Hari

thanx for your comment ???

think positive always.....

old is gold but newer techinques makes a a revolution well rest about advertisement??
i just wanted to share....



[

quote="John Smith"]I think it should be pointed out that the original post in this thread by Dr. Singh is effectively an advertisement for the services of his own clinic.

Whilst not making any judgement whatsoever of Dr. Singh, I would observe that it could be in his interests to promote the newer treatments.

However, it has been pointed out recently that the traditional remedies aren't all perfect, and the only reason why the problems were not highlighted was because there was no viable alternative.

It makes you think![/quote]

Thanks for sharing, Hanspal.

Just out of interest, what percentage of patients would you expect to see with scarring using more traditional methods in those two years?