Evidence Hub

Visual, Tomographic, and Biomechanical Outcomes of CAIRS with Accelerated Cross-Linking in Moderate to Advanced Keratoconus: A 6-Month Retrospective Case Series

Hashmani N, Hashmani S, Saleem J

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026

40 participants

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the visual, tomographic, and biomechanical effects of corneal allogenic intrastromal ring segments (CAIRS) combined with accelerated epithelium-off corneal cross-linking (CXL) in patients with moderate to advanced keratoconus.

Methods: This retrospective case series included 40 eyes of 40 patients with keratoconus. CAIRS segments were prepared from donor corneal tissue stored in Netisol medium and implanted via femtosecond laser-created intrastromal channels. Accelerated epithelium-off CXL (10 mW/cm2 for 9 minutes; total energy 5.4 J/cm2) was performed immediately after CAIRS implantation; an individualized Sub400 protocol was applied in eyes with post-implantation pachymetry below 400 µm. Outcomes at baseline and 6 months included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), spherical equivalent, keratometric indices, pachymetry, higher-order aberrations (HOAs), and Corvis ST biomechanical parameters.

Results: Median BCVA improved from 0.52 to 0.22 logMAR (p=0.005), and spherical equivalent improved from -9.3 D to -4.1 D (p=0.007). K1, K2, Km, and Kmax showed statistically significant flattening (all p<0.05). HOAs and coma did not significantly change. SP-A1 decreased from 52.7 to 51.2 mmHg/mm (p=0.015), while integrated radius showed no significant difference. One eye (2.5%) developed donor segment opacification within the first postoperative week without functional visual consequence; BCVA improved in this eye. No rejection, extrusion, or other adverse events…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 40 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free