Current clinical practice in corneal crosslinking for treatment of progressive keratoconus in four Nordic countries

• Published in: Acta Ophthalmologica
• Main Authors: Gustafsson, Ingemar, Vicente, André, Bergström, Anders, Stenevi, Ulf, Ivarsen, Anders, Hjortdal, Jesper Østergaard
• Format: Text
• Language: English
• Published: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
• Subjects: Original Articles; Norway; Iceland
• Online Access: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10084360/; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35811357; https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.15213

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of progressive keratoconus with corneal crosslinking (CXL) in four Nordic countries. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all centres at which keratoconus patients are evaluated and CXL is performed in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland. Nineteen of 20 centres participated. RESULTS: CXL is performed approximately 1300 times per year in these four Nordic countries with a population of around 21.7 million (2019). In most cases, progression is evaluated using the Pentacam HR, and the maximum keratometry reading (K (max)) is considered the most important parameter. The most frequently used treatment protocol in Scandinavia is the 9 mW/cm(2) epi‐off protocol, using hydroxylpropyl methylcellulose riboflavin (HPMC‐riboflavin). The participants deemed the following areas to be in most need of improvement: adaptation of the CXL protocol to individual patients (5/19), the development of effective epi‐on treatment protocols (4/19), optimal performance of CXL in thin corneas (4/19), improvement of the definition of progression (2/19), and diagnosis of the need for re‐treatment (2/19). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the diagnosis of progressive keratoconus and the diagnostic equipment used are similar. Treatment strategies are also similar but are suitably different to provide an interesting basis for the comparison of treatment outcomes. The high degree of participation in this survey indicates the possibility of future scientific collaboration on CXL focusing on the areas deemed to need improvement. It would also be of interest to evaluate the possibility of creating a Nordic CXL Registry. The high number of CXL treatments performed ensures sufficient statistical power to solve many questions. Such a registry could be an important contribution to evidence‐based care and would allow for longitudinal evaluation.