Transepithelial accelerated versus conventional corneal collagen crosslinking in patients with keratoconus: a comparative study
Received 29 September 2018
Accepted for publication 4 December 2018
Published 1 March 2019 Volume 2019:13 Pages 445—452
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Jie Zhang
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser
Carolina Madeira,1 Ana Vasques,2 João Beato,1 Gonçalo Godinho,1 Luís Torrão,1 Manuel Falcão,1,3 Fernando Falcão-Reis,1,3 João Pinheiro-Costa1,4
1Department of Ophthalmology, Centro Hospitalar de São João, Porto, Portugal; 2Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 3Department of Surgery and Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 4Department of Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
Purpose: To systematically compare the efficacy of transepithelial accelerated corneal collagen crosslinking (TE-ACXL) with conventional corneal collagen crosslinking (C-CXL) in patients with progressive keratoconus.
Methods: Eyes of patients with progressive keratoconus who were treated with C-CXL (3 mW/cm2 for 30 minutes) were compared with those who underwent TE-ACXL (6 mW/cm2 for 15 minutes). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), keratometry values, corneal thickness, and topometric indexes were compared before CXL, and at 2 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively.
Results: The study enrolled 26 eyes of which 16 had TE-ACXL and 10 had C-CXL. Both groups were comparable at baseline and 12 months in terms of BCVA (P=0.16 and P=0.57), Kmax (maximum keratometry) (P=0.31 and P=0.73), pachymetry (P=0.75 and P=0.37), index of surface variance (ISV) (P=0.45 and P=0.86), index of vertical asymmetry (IVA) (P=0.26 and P=0.61), and index of height decentration (IHD) (P=0.27 and P=0.86, respectively). We did not observe significant differences between preoperative and 12-month postoperative readings in within-group analysis: ΔKmax (TE-ACXL, -2.13±5.41, P=0.25 vs C-CXL, 0.78±1.65, P=0.17), Δpachymetry (TE-ACXL, 4.10±14.83, P=0.41 vs C-CXL, -8.90±22.09, P=0.24), ΔISV (TE-ACXL, -8.50±21.26, P=0.24 vs C-CXL, 3.80±12.43, P=0.36), ΔIVA (TE-ACXL, -0.12±0.31, P=0.26 vs C-CXL, 0.03±0.18, P=0.61), and ΔIHD (TE-ACXL, -0.03±0.07, P=0.18 vs C-CXL, -0.01±0.03, P=0.88).
Conclusion: Both TE-ACXL and C-CXL were similarly effective. Further follow-up is required to determine whether these techniques are comparable in the long-term.
Keywords: cornea, keratoconus, crosslinking, transepithelial, riboflavin, ultraviolet radiation, keratometry
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]