Collagen cross- linking for paediatric keratoconus

Background: Since the late 1990s corneal crosslinking (CXL) has been proposed as a new treatment option which can stop progression of keratoconus with promising results in adults. Objective: Keratoconus presents a higher rate and faster progression in paediatric patients and for this reason prompt and effective treatment is essential. Due to its success in adult keratoconus patients, CXL has been recently applied to children in order to stop or slow progression of keratoconus in paediatric patients. Conclusions: This article will present an update of the literature on the topic of CXL in this age group. © 2017 Panos et al

Update in treatment of uveitic macular edema

Spyridon Koronis,1 Panagiotis Stavrakas,2 Miltiadis Balidis,1 Nikolaos Kozeis,1 Paris G Tranos1 1Ophthalmica Eye Institute, Thessaloniki, Greece; 2Department of Ophthalmology, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece Abstract: Macular edema (ME) represents the most common cause for visual loss among uveitis patients. The management of uveitic macular edema (UME) may be challenging, due to its often recalcitrant nature. Corticosteroids remain the mainstay of treatment, through their capability of effectively controlling inflammation and the associated ME. Topical steroids may be effective in milder cases of UME, particularly in edema associated with anterior uveitis. Posterior sub-Tenon and orbital floor steroids, as well as intravitreal steroids often induce rapid regression of UME, although this may be followed by recurrence of the pathology. Intravitreal corticosteroid implants provide sustained release of steroids facilitating regression of ME with less frequent injections. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may provide a safe alternative or adjuvant therapy to topical steroids in mild UME, predominantly in cases with underlying anterior uveitis. Immunomodulators including methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus, azathioprine, and cyclosporine, as well as biologic agents, notably the anti-tumor necrosis factor-α monoclonal antibodies adalimumab and infliximab, may accomplish the control of inflammation and associated ME in refractory cases, or enable the tapering of steroids. Newer biotherapies have demonstrated promising outcomes and may be considered in persisting cases of UME. Keywords: uveitis, macular edema, treatment, corticosteroids, dexamethasone implant, NSAIDs, anti-TNFα, interferon

Contact lenses for keratoconus- current practice

Background: Keratoconus is a chronic, bilateral, usuallly asymmetrical, non-inflammatory, ectatic disorder, being characterized by progressive steepening, thinning and apical scarring of the cornea. Initially, the patient is asymptomatic, but the visual acuity gradually decreases, resulting in significant vision loss due to the development of irregular astigmatism, myopia, corneal thinning and scarring. The classic treatment of visual rehabilitation in keratoconus is based on spectacles and contact lenses (CLs). Objective: To summarize the types of CLs used in the treatment of keratoconus. This is literature review of several important published articles focusing on the visual rehabilitation in keratoconus with CLs. Method: Gas permeable (GP) CLs have been found to achieve better best corrected visual acuity than spectacles, eliminating 3rd-order coma root-mean-square (RMS) error, 3rd-order RMS, and higher-order RMS. However, they have implicated in reduction of corneal basal epithelial cell and anterior stromal keratocyte densities. Soft CLs seem to provide greater comfort and lower cost, but the low oxygen permeability (if the lens is not a silicone hydrogel), and the inability to mask moderate to severe irregular astigmatism are the main disadvantages of them. On the other hand, scleral CLs ensure stable platforms, which eliminate high-order aberrations and provide good centration and visual acuity. Their main disadvantages include the difficulties in application and removal of these lenses along with corneal flattening and swelling. Result: The modern hybrid CLs are indicated in cases of poor centration, poor stability or intolerance with GP lenses. Finally, piggyback CL systems effectively ameliorate visual acuity, but they have been related to corneal neovascularization and giant papillary conjunctivitis. Conclusion: CLs seem to rehabilitate visual performance, diminishing the power of the cylinder and the high-order aberrations. The final choice of CLs is based on their special features, the subsequent corneal changes and the patient’s needs. © 2017 Moschos et al