UK Keratoconus Self-Help and Support Association

Hey guys,

Was wondering if anyone has heard of accelerated cross linking or PiXL or KXL ii?

I had standard cross linking done on one eye 3 years ago it showed signs of stabilising after approx 12 months however the eye has started deteriorating again and my other eye has developed KC as well. I visited DR's in Germany recently and they recommend this Acccelerated Cross Linking/PiXL/ KXLii procedure which is apparently much more effective (according to them)?

Please could anyone share any info you may have...

Cheers

Haven't heard of this one myself, unless it's just another 'brand' name sort of thing... what did they tell you that's different about it?

Its supposed to be more effective because the UV exposure is more intense approx the same as standard cross linking but its done within a few minutes...also the exposure is more concentrated on the areas of the cornea with bulges etc, ie it's personalised to the topography of the eye.

http://avedro.com/medical-professionals ... s-linking/

http://avedro.com/medical-professionals ... ures/pixl/

this would probably be clearer than my laymens explanation.

Cheers

Thanks for telling us about this, Abdul. There are new developments in KC all the time and it's hard to keep up with them all!
Moorfields (and probably other hospitals) do accelarated CXL now http://www.moorfields.nhs.uk/sites/defa ... king_4.pdf
although I'm not sure it's as short as the 3 mins Avedro talk about. And I don't think it's topography guided yet, though people who have had CXL recently will know more than I do.

It's probably time for your offer of the DVD Anne within that latest one you sent out, it actually discussed why more intense UV light in a short amount of time is less effective than a less intense UV light for a longer amount of time. Who's right!? Very confusing, as most things are with keratoconus.

Unfortunately I only watched it after my CXL had already taken place... but it was interesting viewing none the less.

Well, since our conference in 2013, there have been some research studies comparing the effectiveness of accelerated and conventional CXL - googling produced several articles, including this http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/ukcxl/research-update/
So the consensus seems to be moving to saying they are equally effective. But I guess there will always be different views in this fast moving field.

Interesting, thanks for the link! Although frustrating that it states: Anecdotally, haze appears to be much less common after accelerated CXL. meaning I'm even more 'special' than I thought I was lol.