Eyeworld

Name of Ad Page number 11 I do not ask optometrists to do any homework or jump through any hoops to document progression; in fact, I don't even discuss the criteria for progression because I don't want that to be a barrier to referral. — Jack Parker, MD, PhD to referrals may result in some consultations with patients who do not have KC. Practices should disclose up front how these patients will be billed or plan to simply absorb the cost of the diag- nostic exam. If the patient doesn't need to undergo cross-linking (either because they don't have KC or the condition is stable), the refer- ring doctor should be con- tacted with an explanation. With more than 8 years of cross-linking experience in the United States, and many more before that internationally and in clinical trials, early adopters have gained considerable expertise in strategies to optimize the provision of cross-link- ing services. By adopting some or all of the "difference-maker" pearls described in these pages, practitioners can ensure a strong cross-linking practice in which patients with progressive keratoconus can be diagnosed as early as possible and effectively managed with cross-linking when indicated. scan here to order Glaukos resources Scan here to visit The National Keratoconus Foundation website It is also important to ensure that the patient knows that their doctor was diligent in noting red flags and did the right thing by sending them for a consult. ■ References 1. Kennedy R, Bourne W, Dyer J. A 48-year clinical and epidemiologic study of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986;101(3):267-273. 2. Harthan JS, Gelles JD, Block SS, et al. Prevalence of keratoconus based on Scheimpflug corneal tomography metrics in a pediatric population from a Chicago-based school age vision clinic. Eye & Contact Lens. 2024;50(3):121-125. doi:10.1097/ ICL.0000000000001072 3. Davidson AE, Hayes S, Hardcastle AJ, Tuft SJ. The pathogenesis of keratoconus. Eye (Lond). 2014;28(2):189-195. 4. Romano V, Vinciguerra R, Arbabi EM, et al. Progression of keratoconus in patients while awaiting corneal cross-linking: A prospective clinical study. J Refract Surg. 2018;34(3):177-180. 5. Buzzonetti L, Bohringer D, Liskova P, Lang S, Valente P. Keratoconus in children: A literature review. Cornea. 2020;39(12):1592- 1598. 6. Chatzis N, Hafezi F. Progression of keratoconus and efficacy of pediatric [corrected] corneal collagen cross-linking in children and adolescents. J Refract Surg. 2012;28(11):753-758. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20121011-01 7. Greenstein SA, Yu AS, Gelles JD, et al. Long-term outcomes after corneal cross-linking for progressive keratoconus and corneal ectasia: A 10-year follow-up of the pivotal study. Eye Contact Lens 2023;49(10):411-416. 8. Hersh PS SR, Muller D. United States multicenter clinical trial of corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus treatment. Ophthalmology. 2017;124(9):1259-1270. 9. Lindstrom RL, Berdahl JP, Donnenfeld ED. Corneal cross-linking versus conventional management for keratoconus: a lifetime economic model. J Med Econ. 2021;24(1):410-420. 10. Jhanji V, Ahmad S, Amescua G, et al. Corneal ectasia preferred practice pattern. Ophthalmology. 2024;Online ahead of printdoi:doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2023.12.038. 11. Belin M, Lim L, Rajpal R, al e. Corneal cross-linking: Current USA status report from the Cornea Society. . Cornea. 2018;37(10):1218- 1225. 12. Wagner H, Barr J, Zadnik K. Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study: methods and findings to date. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2007;30(4):223-232. 13. Pellegrini M, Bernabei F, Friehmann A, Giannaccare G. Obstructive sleep ppnea and keratoconus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Optom Vis Sci. 2020;97(1):9-14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/opx.0000000000001467 14. Wang Y, Rabinowitz Y, Rotter J, Yang H. Genetic epidemiological study of keratoconus: evidence for major gene determina- tion. Am J Med Genet. 2000;93(5):403-409. 15. Kojima T, Nishida T, Nakamura T, et al. Keratoconus screening using values derived from auto-keratometer measurements: A multicenter study Am J Ophthalmol. 2020;215:127-134. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.02.017 11 Conclusion

• Cover