↓ Skip to main content

Corneal Nerve Regeneration After Collagen Cross-Linking Treatment of Keratoconus: A 5-Year Longitudinal Study

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Ophthalmology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Corneal Nerve Regeneration After Collagen Cross-Linking Treatment of Keratoconus: A 5-Year Longitudinal Study
Published in
JAMA Ophthalmology, January 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.4518
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marlen Parissi, Stefan Randjelovic, Enea Poletti, Pedro Guimarães, Alfredo Ruggeri, Sofia Fragkiskou, Thu Ba Wihlmark, Tor Paaske Utheim, Neil Lagali

Abstract

It is unknown whether a neurotrophic deficit or pathologic nerve morphology persists in keratoconus in the long term after corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) treatment. Nerve pathology could impact long-term corneal status in patients with keratoconus. To determine whether CXL treatment of keratoconus results in normalization of subbasal nerve density and architecture up to 5 years after treatment. Observational study of 19 patients with early-stage keratoconus indicated for a first CXL treatment with longitudinal follow-up to 5 years postoperatively (examinations were performed from 2009 to 2015; analysis was performed from February to May 2015) and 19 age-matched healthy volunteers at a primary care center and a university hospital ophthalmology department. The patients with keratoconus underwent standard epithelial-off UV-A/riboflavin CXL treatment with 30-minute UV-A exposure at 3 mW/cm2 irradiance. Central corneal subbasal nerve density and subbasal nerve architecture by use of laser-scanning in vivo confocal microscopy; subbasal nerve analysis by 2 masked observers and by use of a fully automated method; wide-field mosaics of subbasal nerve architecture by use of an automated method; and ocular surface touch sensitivity by use of contact esthesiometry. Mean (SD) age of the 19 patients with keratoconus was 27.5 (7.1) years (range, 19-44 years), and minimal corneal thickness was 428 (36) μm (range, 372-497 μm). Compared with the mean (SD) preoperative subbasal nerve density of 21.0 (4.2) mm/mm2 in healthy corneas, the mean (SD) preoperative subbasal nerve density of 10.3 (5.6) mm/mm2 in the corneas of patients with stage 1 or 2 keratoconus was reduced 51% (mean difference, 10.7 mm/mm2 [95% CI, 6.8-14.6 mm/mm2]; P < .001). After CXL, nerves continued to regenerate for up to 5 years, but nerve density remained reduced relative to healthy corneas at final follow-up (mean reduction, 8.5 mm/mm2 [95% CI, 4.7-12.4 mm/mm2]; P < .001) despite recovery of touch sensitivity to normal levels by 6 months. Preoperatively, more frequent nerve loops, crossings, and greater crossing angles were observed in the corneas of patients with keratoconus compared with healthy corneas. Postoperatively, the frequency of nerve looping increased, crossings were more frequent, and nerve tortuosity increased. Wide-field mosaics indicated persistent disrupted orientation of the regenerating subbasal nerves 5 years after CXL. Keratoconus is characterized by a neurotrophic deficit and altered nerve morphology that CXL treatment does not address, despite providing a positive biomechanical effect in the stroma. Given the widespread use of CXL in the management of patients with keratoconus, the progression of abnormal innervation after CXL should be recognized.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Other 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 16 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,410,375
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Ophthalmology
#2,555
of 6,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,712
of 399,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Ophthalmology
#37
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,642 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.