Transepithelial accelerated versus conventional corneal collagen crosslinking in patients with keratoconus: a comparative study

Epithelium-on versus epithelium-off corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) is the primary treatment for progressive keratoconus which has a significant impact on vision and quality of life. Our study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of epithelium-on versus epithelium-off CXL to treat keratoconus.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. We included studies that compared standard epithelium-off with epithelium-on CXL. The primary outcome measures were changes in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and maximum keratometry (Kmax), and the secondary outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), central corneal thickness (CCT), and adverse events. A meta-analysis was performed on the primary and secondary outcomes based on the weighted mean differences between baseline to 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 887 publications with 27 included in the systematic review. A total of 1622 eyes (1399 patients; age 25.51 ± 4.02 years) were included in comparisons of epithelium-off to epithelium-on CXL in keratoconus. Epithelium-off CXL treated 800 eyes and epithelium-on CXL for 822 eyes. At 12-month follow-up, CDVA and Kmax showed no significant difference between the epithelium-off and epithelium-on CXL. The secondary outcomes showed that UDVA was better in epithelium-off CXL (- 0.11D, 95% CI - 0.12, - 0.1; p < 0.001) and there was more thinning in CCT in epithelium-off CXL (- 3.23 μm, 95% CI - 4.64, - 1.81; p <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Epithelium-off and epithelium-on CXL were both effective to treat progressive keratoconus. Further research is needed to compare the long-term outcomes and safety of both CXL protocols for adaptation into clinical practice.

Transepithelial Accelerated Crosslinking for Progressive Keratoconus: A Critical Analysis of Medium-Term Treatment Outcomes

Purpose

To report the 4-year outcomes of transepithelial accelerated corneal collagen crosslinking (TE-ACXL) in the treatment of eyes with progressive keratoconus (KC).

Methods

Eyes of patients who underwent TE-ACXL (6mW/cm2 for 15 minutes) for progressive KC and presented 48 months of follow-up were included. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), keratometry measurements (Kmax, maximum keratometry, Kmean, mean keratometry and Astg, corneal astigmatism), thinnest corneal thickness (PachyMin), and topographic, and tomographic indices (specifically the posterior radius of curvature from the 3.0 mm centered on the thinnest point of the cornea (PRC), and the D-index) were analysed preoperatively and every 12 months after TE-ACXL, up to 48 months. Progression after TE-ACXL was considered when eyes presented ≥1 criteria: (1) increase of ≥1D in Kmax or increase of ≥0.75D in Kmean or increase of ≥1D in Astg; (2) reduction of ≥0.085 mm in PRC; (3) decrease ≥5% in PachyMin.

Results

41 eyes from 30 patients were included, with a mean age at crosslinking of 20.90±4.69 years. There was a significant increase in Kmean (+0.64±1.04 D, p<0.001; +0.98 ± 1.49 D, p<0.001; +1.27±2.01 D, p<0.001; +1.13±2.00 D, p=0.006) and a significant decrease in PRC throughout follow-up (-0.12±0.22, p=0.002; -0.15±0.24, p<0.001; -0.17±0.43, p=0.021; -0.16±0.43, p=0.027). PachyMin decreased significantly at 36 and 48 months (-8.50±15.93 μm, p=0.004; -7.82±18.37, p=0.033). According to our progression criteria, there was a major progression rate throughout follow-up (57.1%, 61.1%, 58.8%, and 67.9%, respectively). Surgery and follow-up were uneventful in all subjects. Eleven eyes (26.8%) required further procedures, ≥36 months after the initial TE-ACXL, due to persistent progressive disease.

Conclusion

TE-ACXL proved to be a safe therapeutic option for progressive KC. However, its efficacy is deemed unsatisfactory, as a notable proportion of affected eyes may continue to advance within a 4-year timeframe, necessitating additional procedures to halt the disease's course.

Best Fit Sphere Back and Adjusted Maximum Elevation of Corneal Back Surface as Novel Predictors of Keratoconus Progression

Purpose

We evaluated the Maximum Elevation of Corneal Back Surface adjusted to the same Best Fit Sphere Back (BFSB) between timeline measurements (AdjEleBmax) and the BFSB radius (BFSBR) itself as new tomographic parameters for documentation of ectasia progression and compare them with the most recent and reliable parameters used on keratoconus (KC) progression.

Results

We evaluated the performance and the ideal cutoff point of Kmax, D-index, posterior radius of curvature from the 3.0 mm centered on the thinnest point (PRC), EleBmax, BFSBR, and AdjEleBmax as isolated parameters to document KC progression (defined as a significant change in two or more variables), we found a sensitivity of 70%, 82%, 79%, 65%, 51%, and 63% and a specificity of 91%, 98%, 80%, 73%, 80%, and 84% to detect KC progression. The area under the curve (AUC) for each variable was 0.822, 0.927, 0.844, 0.690, 0.695, 0.754, respectively.

Conclusion

AdjEleBmax presented a greater specificity, larger AUC, and better performance compared to EleBmax without any adjustment, with similar sensitivity. Although AdjEleBmax and BFSB demonstrated smaller AUC and specificities comparing with Kmax and D-Index, AdjEleBmax still presented a good performance with a reasonable AUC. Since the shape of the posterior surface, more aspheric and curved than the anterior, may facilitate detection of change, we suggest the inclusion of AdjEleBmax in the evaluation of KC progression in conjunction with other variables to increase the reliability of our clinical evaluation and early detection of progression.

One-year non-comparative observational study to evaluate corneal tomographic, densitometric, and aberrometric features following accelerated corneal cross-linking in progressive keratoconus

PURPOSE

To evaluate the 12 months' changes in tomographic, densitometric, and aberrometric parameters in keratoconic eyes after accelerated corneal cross-linking (CCL) and classify a densitometric course in different stages of the keratoconus separately (mild, moderate, and severe).

METHODS

In a prospective observational study, 67 keratoconic eyes of 67 patients that underwent accelerated epithelium-off corneal cross-linking (9 mW/cm² and 10 min) for treatment of progressive keratoconus were included. Corneal tomographic, densitometric, and aberrometric values obtained using the Pentacam HR were recorded at the baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months post-operatively.

RESULTS

One year after treatment, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was improved, and maximum keratometry, thinnest pachymetry, higher order, and total root mean square (RMS) were significantly decreased (p < 0.001). Corneal densitometry values showed a significant elevation 3 months post-surgery compared to baseline and then decreased to baseline values at 1 year. Only the Anterior 0-2 mm zone densitometry at the 3rd month was different between the three groups. RMS at 1 year correlated with Anterior 0-2 mm, Anterior 2-6 mm, total corneal 0-2 mm, and total corneal 2-6 mm densitometry values in the 3rd month. Final CDVA at 12th month follow-up correlated with the Anterior 0-2 mm corneal densitometry in the 3rd month.

CONCLUSION

Anterior 0-2 mm zone densitometry at the 3rd-month post-accelerated CCL is different in various stages of keratoconus. Due to the correlation between final aberrometric and peak densitometric values in keratoconic eyes, peak densitometric values can be used as a prognostic factor for the final visual outcomes after accelerated CCL.

Current approaches in the management of patients with keratoconus

Keratoconus is a relatively frequent eye disease, especially in young patients, in which the cornea gradually thins and deforms in a cone shape. In the past, it could be treated only with glasses, rigid contact lenses or, for advanced cases, penetrating corneal transplant. Nowadays, corneal cross-linking, intracorneal ring segments implantation or deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty are available options of treatment, along with the above mentioned ones. Several studies focused on this disease and its management attempted to establish the applicability of these treatment methods in current practice. In the early stages, glasses or soft toric contact lenses are able to correct the astigmatism, but, as the disease progresses, rigid contact lenses are indicated. Corneal cross-linking is done in order to slow down or even stop the progression of the disease. Implanting intracorneal ring segments helps improve visual acuity in patients with low vision that cannot be corrected otherwise. Advanced stages need corneal transplant, either penetrating or anterior lamellar, depending on each patient's ocular characteristics. Thus, keratoconus treatment is individualized for every patient, according to the stage of the disease. Moreover, because of the new developed technology, keratoconus patients can benefit from efficient treatment, in much safer conditions.

Evaluation of macular function and morphology following accelerated collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconus

PURPOSE

To assess any changes in macular function and morphology in patients with progressive keratoconus undergoing accelerated corneal cross-linking (CXL).

METHODS

This prospective case series included 9 eyes of 8 patients with progressive keratoconus undergoing CXL using a high intensity accelerated protocol (9 mW/cm² for 14 min) with a total surface dose of 7.5 J/cm². Visual acuity assessment, slit lamp biomicroscopy, dilated fundoscopy, corneal tomography, multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) and spectral domain optical coherence tomography scan were performed at baseline, 2 weeks and 6 weeks postoperatively.

RESULTS

Uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity did not change significantly at 2 weeks and 6 weeks following accelerated CXL compared to baseline. Retinal response density (RRD) of mfERG significantly decreased at 2 weeks postoperatively compared to baseline (p = 0.008) but did not differ from the baseline value at 6 weeks postoperatively in the fovea (ring 1) (p = 0.95). Similarly, P1 latency significantly decreased at 2 weeks (p = 0.04) but did not change at 6 weeks (p = 1.00) postoperatively compared to baseline in the fovea. No changes in RRD or P1 latency were observed in the retinal rings surrounding the fovea (rings 2 to 5). Central foveal thickness did not change at 2 weeks and 6 weeks postoperatively compared to baseline (p = 0.53 and p = 0.93, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

A short-term reversible decrease in macular electrical activity without any structural changes seems to occur after accelerated CXL in patients with progressive keratoconus. The return of macular response to the preoperative values shows the safety of the CXL protocol.

Screening of Keratoconus Using Autokeratometer and Keratometer Keratoconus Index

The keratometer keratoconus index (KKI) is a diagnostic index for the risk of keratoconus calculated from autokeratometer test values. We partially modified the KKI equation and assessed it without limiting the target age and severity of keratoconus. This retrospective study included 179 eyes of 99 patients with keratoconus and 468 eyes from 235 normal controls. In the modified KKI, oblique astigmatism or against-the-rule astigmatism was defined as ≥1D astigmatism. KKI diagnostic power was analyzed in subgroups of <50 and ≥50-year-old patients, and at different keratoconus stages. Although the sensitivity of modified KKI was comparable with that of original KKI (92.7% vs. 95.5%), modified KKI specificity was significantly higher (79.7% vs. 68.6%) (p = 0.0001). Using the modified KKI, sensitivity reached 100% (4/4) and specificity, 63.5% (33/52), in ≥50-year-old patients, while overall sensitivity in keratoconus ≥stage 2 was 100% (30/30). In conclusion, the modified KKI proved to be effective in keratoconus screening at all stages. However, it should be noted that false-positive frequency is higher in ≥50-year-old patients.

Keratoconus enlargement as a predictor of keratoconus progression

Numerous approaches have been designated to document progression in keratoconus, nevertheless there is no consistent or clear definition of ectasia progression. In this present study, we aim to evaluate Keratoconus Enlargement (KCE) as a parameter to document ectasia progression. We define KCE as an increase of more than 1D in the anterior curvature of non-apical corneal areas. We have designed a longitudinal study in 113 keratoconic eyes to assess keratoconus progression. KCE was compared with variables commonly used for detection of keratoconus progression like Kmax, Km, K2, PachyMin, D-Index, Corneal Astigmatism and PRC of 3.0 mm centered on the thinnest point. The variations of keratometric readings, D-index and ELEBmax showed positive associations with KCE. Evaluating the performance of Kmax, D-index and KCE as isolated parameters to document keratoconus progression we found a sensitivity of 49%, 82% and 77% and a specificity of 100%, 95% and 66% to detect keratoconus progression (p < 0.001 for all). This difference in sensitivity can be explained by the changes in keratoconus outside the small area represented by Kmax. The inclusion of KCE should be considered in the evaluation of keratoconus progression in conjunction with other variables to increase the reliability of our clinical evaluation.

Corneal collagen cross-linking epithelium-on vs. epithelium-off: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to determine the advantages and disadvantages of epi-on corneal cross-linking (CXL) techniques compared with standard epi-off CXL.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) and we evaluated the selected papers according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We considered, as primary outcomes, average Kmax flattening, changes in uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA); as secondary outcomes, we considered changes in pachymetry values and endothelial cell density (ECD). We also investigated adverse events related to the treatments and treatment failure. Meta-analysis was conducted with a fixed or random-effects model using weighted mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as the effect size.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies were included and among these 15 trials, 9 were RCTs and 6 were NRSIs, but only 4 studies showed no high risk of bias and were included in this meta-analysis. Our analysis revealed significant postoperative differences in CDVA (MD = 0.07; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10; P < 0.001), and no significative differences in UDVA, Kmax, central corneal thickness (CCT) and ECD (P > 0.05). Epi-on CXL protocol was found to be significantly less prompt to have risks of delay in epithelial healing (P = 0.035) and persistent stromal haze (P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Epi-on CXL is as effective as epi-off CXL. Except for a higher significant improvement in CDVA with current epi-on protocols, our meta-analysis demonstrates that epi-on and epi-off CXL have comparable effects on visual, topographic, pachymetric, and endothelial parameters. Epi-on CXL has clinical advantages in terms of comfort and avoidance of complications as it reduces the risk of developing delay in epithelial healing and persistent stromal haze.

Comparison of corneal biological parameters between transepithelial and epithelium-off corneal cross-linking in keratoconus

AIM

To evaluate the differences in corneal biological parameters between transepithelial and epithelium-off corneal cross-linking in keratoconus.

METHODS

In our prospective clinical trial, 40 patients (60 eyes) with progressive keratoconus were randomized to undergo corneal cross-linking with transepithelial (TE group, n=30) or epithelium-off (EO group, n=30) keratoconus. Examinations comprised topography, corneal biomechanical analysis and specular microscopy at 6mo postoperatively.

RESULTS

The keratometer values were not significantly different between the TE and EO corneal cross-linked groups in different periods (each P>0.05). The corneal thickness of the EO group was greater than that of the TE group at 1wk after the operation (each P<0.05). Regarding corneal biomechanical responses, the EO group showed a longer second applanation length than TE group (P=0.003). Regarding the corneal endothelial function, standard deviation of the endothelial cell size, and coefficient of variation in the cell area, the values of EO group were larger than those of TE group at 1wk (P=0.011, 0.026), and the percentage of hexagonal cells in EO group was lower than that in TE group at 1 and 6mo (P=0.018, 0.019).

CONCLUSION

Epithelium-off corneal cross-linking may strengthen corneal biomechanics better than TE procedure can. However, the TE procedure with a lower ultraviolet-A irradiation intensity would be safer for corneal endothelial function.

Update on corneal collagen crosslinking for ectasia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) is a minimally invasive treatment that can stabilize corneal ectatic disorders including keratoconus, pellucid marginal degeneration, or postrefractive surgery ectasia. The benefits of CXL have been well documented. New research is focused on modifying current treatment protocols with the goals of maximizing corneal stability while also shortening overall procedure time.

RECENT FINDINGS

Accelerated CXL protocols have the goal of delivering the same ultraviolet A intensity as conventional protocols, but over a shorter time period. Accelerated protocols have shown success to date, but there are concerns for long-term corneal stability. Pulsed protocols may increase the long-term efficacy of the accelerated designs. In addition, transepithelial crosslinking protocols have been designed with the goal of reducing postoperative pain and lower the risk of infectious complications of epithelial-off conventional protocols.

SUMMARY

Newer CXL protocols attempt to make the procedure safer and more effective. Current research is promising, but long-term studies are essential to understand how the new protocols may affect corneal stability.

Long-Term Visual, Refractive and Topographic Outcomes of KeraRings Combined with Accelerated Transepithelial Crosslinking for Management of Different Grades of Progressive Keratoconus: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose:

To evaluate long-term visual, refractive, and topographic outcomes of KeraRings intrastromal implantation combined with accelerated transepithelial cross-linking for management of different stages of progressive keratoconus.

Materials and Methods:

This retrospective cohort study included 70 eyes of 70 patients with Amsler-Krumeich grades 1 to 4 keratoconus. They were divided into two groups: group-A included 37 eyes with grades 1-2 keratoconus, and group-B included 33 eyes with grades 3-4 keratoconus. Both groups underwent combined Keraring implantation with TCXL treatment. The main outcome measures included the preoperative and postoperative visual acuity, refraction, keratometry readings, and pachymetry.

Results:

At postoperative month 60, group-B exhibited significantly higher values of all mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), sphere/cylinder/spherical equivalent/defocus equivalent (DEQ), and K1/K2/Kaverages/Kmax parameters compared to that of group A. However, group-A exhibited better stability of postoperative improvements. Keratoconus progression (KCP) was greater in group-B (45.5%) than group-A (10.8%). Two eyes revealed segments' migration while one eye showed tunnel vascularization and opacification with segments' migration.

Conclusion:

The diagnostic criteria of preoperative-KCP are not adequate for the diagnosis of postoperative-KCP following ICRS implantation. UDVA and K average posterior seemed to be more sensitive parameters than K max in documenting early postoperative-KCP. We suggest that deterioration of UDVA≥0.10 log MAR and/or K average posterior ≥0.25 D are highly suspicious of post-ring implantation keratoconus progression (PR-KCP). The occurrence of two of the following parameters: Kmax≥0.50 D, Kaverageanterior≥0.50 D, K average posterior ≥0.25 D, or pachymetry≥1.5% thinning, is diagnostic of PR-KCP. The occurrence of two or more of the following parameters: Kmax≥0.50 D, Kaverageanterior≥0.50 D, Kaverageposterior ≥0.25 D, pachymetry≥ 1.5% thinning or UDVA≥0.10 logMAR, is diagnostic of PR-KCP. We also suggest that Kmax≥0.75 D alone is diagnostic of PR-KCP.

Transepithelial versus epithelium-off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus

BACKGROUND

Keratoconus is the most common corneal dystrophy. It can cause loss of uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity through ectasia (thinning) of the central or paracentral cornea, irregular corneal scarring, or corneal perforation. Disease onset usually occurs in the second to fourth decade of life, periods of peak educational attainment or career development. The condition is lifelong and sight-threatening. Corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) using ultraviolet A (UVA) light applied to the cornea is the only treatment that has been shown to slow progression of disease. The original, more widely known technique involves application of UVA light to de-epithelialized cornea, to which a photosensitizer (riboflavin) is added topically throughout the irradiation process. Transepithelial CXL is a recently advocated alternative to the standard CXL procedure, in that the epithelium is kept intact during CXL. Retention of the epithelium offers the putative advantages of faster healing, less patient discomfort, faster visual rehabilitation, and less risk of corneal haze.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of transepithelial CXL compared with epithelium-off CXL for progressive keratoconus.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify potentially eligible studies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not impose any date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which transepithelial CXL had been compared with epithelium-off CXL in participants with progressive keratoconus.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with 723 eyes of 578 participants enrolled; 13 to 119 participants were enrolled per study. Seven studies were conducted in Europe, three in the Middle East, and one each in India, Russia, and Turkey. Seven studies were parallel-group RCTs, one study was an RCT with a paired-eyes design, and five studies were RCTs in which both eyes of some or all participants were assigned to the same intervention. Eleven studies compared transepithelial CXL with epithelium-off CXL in participants with progressive keratoconus. There was no evidence of an important difference between intervention groups in maximum keratometry (denoted 'maximum K' or 'Kmax'; also known as steepest keratometry measurement) at 12 months or later (mean difference (MD) 0.99 diopters (D), 95% CI -0.11 to 2.09; 5 studies; 177 eyes; I² = 41%; very low certainty evidence). Few studies described other outcomes of interest. The evidence is very uncertain that epithelium-off CXL may have a small (data from two studies were not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity (I² = 92%)) or no effect on stabilization of progressive keratoconus compared with transepithelial CXL; comparison of the estimated proportions of eyes with decreases or increases of 2 or more diopters in maximum K at 12 months from one study with 61 eyes was RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.09 to 1.12) and RR (non-event) 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.00), respectively (very low certainty). We did not estimate an overall effect on corrected-distance visual acuity (CDVA) because substantial heterogeneity was detected (I² = 70%). No study evaluated CDVA gain or loss of 10 or more letters on a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) chart. Transepithelial CXL may result in little to no difference in CDVA at 12 months or beyond. Four studies reported that either no adverse events or no serious adverse events had been observed. Another study noted no change in endothelial cell count after either procedure. Moderate certainty evidence from 4 studies (221 eyes) found that epithelium-off CXL resulted in a slight increase in corneal haze or scarring when compared to transepithelial CXL (RR (non-event) 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14). Three studies, one of which had three arms, compared outcomes among participants assigned to transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis versus those assigned to epithelium-off CXL. No conclusive evidence was found for either keratometry or visual acuity outcomes at 12 months or later after surgery. Low certainty evidence suggests that transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis results in no difference in logMAR CDVA (MD 0.00 letter, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.04; 2 studies; 51 eyes). Only one study examined gain or loss of 10 or more logMAR letters. In terms of adverse events, one case of subepithelial infiltrate was reported after transepithelial CXL with iontophoresis, whereas two cases of faint corneal scars and four cases of permanent haze were observed after epithelium-off CXL. Vogt's striae were found in one eye after each intervention. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for the outcomes in this comparison due to imprecision of estimates for all outcomes and risk of bias in the studies from which data have been reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because of lack of precision, frequent indeterminate risk of bias due to inadequate reporting, and inconsistency in outcomes measured and reported among studies in this systematic review, it remains unknown whether transepithelial CXL, or any other approach, may confer an advantage over epithelium-off CXL for patients with progressive keratoconus with respect to further progression of keratoconus, visual acuity outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Arrest of the progression of keratoconus should be the primary outcome of interest in future trials of CXL, particularly when comparing the effectiveness of different approaches to CXL. Furthermore, methods of assessing and defining progressive keratoconus should be standardized. Trials with longer follow-up are required in order to assure that outcomes are measured after corneal wound-healing and stabilization of keratoconus. In addition, perioperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care should be standardized to permit meaningful comparisons of CXL methods. Methods to increase penetration of riboflavin through intact epithelium as well as delivery of increased dose of UVA may be needed to improve outcomes. PROs should be measured and reported. The visual significance of adverse outcomes, such as corneal haze, should be assessed and correlated with other outcomes, including PROs.

Comparison of Standard and Transepithelial Corneal Cross-Linking for the Treatment of Keratoconus: A Meta-analysis

Purpose

To compare the clinical results of standard corneal cross-linking (SCXL) with transepithelial corneal cross-linking (TECXL) in progressive keratoconus using a meta-analysis.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to June 2020 to identify relevant studies. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Primary outcomes were change in uncorrected distance visual acuity and maximum keratometry (K_max) after CXL. Secondary outcomes were change in corrected distance visual acuity, mean refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE), spherical and cylindrical error, endothelial cells density (ECD), and central corneal thickness (CCT).

Results

Sixteen studies with a total of 690 eyes (SCXL: 332 eyes; TECXL: 358 eyes) were included. At the last follow-up, SCXL provided a greater decrease in maximum keratometry (K_max) than TECXL (weighted mean difference (WMD) −1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.96, −0.29). For the other outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences.

Conclusions

Except for a greater decrease in Kmax with SCXL group, both groups have a comparable effect on visual, pachymetric, and endothelial parameters at 24 months after surgery. Larger studies with a longer follow-up time are necessary to determine whether these techniques are comparable in the long term.

Increased choroidal thickness is not a disease progression marker in keratoconus

The recent findings of increased Choroidal Thickness (CT) in Keratoconus (KC) patients raised the question of whether CT could be an indicator of progressive KC. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated and compared the choroidal profile in progressive and non-progressive KC. We ran a cross-sectional observational study in 76 patients diagnosed with KC, age 14–30, to assess KC progression. Progression was defined as when at least two of the studied variables confirmed progression (Kmax, Km, PachyMin, D-Index, Astig, K2, 3 mm PCR). Included patients performed a Spectralis Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) with enhanced depth image (EDI) technology to evaluate choroidal profile. Choroidal measurements were taken subfoveally and at 500 µm intervals from the fovea, in 7 different locations, and compared between groups. Multivariate linear regression analyses were also performed to assess the influence of CT in KC progression. Thirty-six eyes (47.4%) were classified as KC progressors. The mean subfoveal CT observed in the total sample was 382.0 (± 97.0) μm. The comparison between groups (progressive and non-progressive KC) showed no differences in the locations evaluated (mean subfoveal CT difference between groups was 2.4 μm, p = 0.915). In the multivariate analysis CT seems not be influenced by KC progression (B = 6.72 μm, 95% CI − 40.09 to 53.53, p = 0.775). Assessment of choroidal profile does not appear to be a useful tool to differentiate progressive and non-progressive KC. Further research is needed in order to better understand the role of choroid in KC.

Long-Term Visual, Refractive and Topographic Outcomes of "Epi-off" Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking in Pediatric Keratoconus: Standard versus Accelerated Protocol

PURPOSE

To compare the visual, refractive and topographic outcomes of standard and accelerated corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) in pediatric keratoconus patients.

METHODS

Prospective, comparative observational study on 68 eyes of 35 pediatric keratoconus patients (<18 years). Patients were classified into two groups, group (I) included 34 eyes and received standard "Epi-Off" CXL (3 mW/cm², 30 min.) and group (II) included 34 eyes and received accelerated "Epi-Off" CXL (9 mW/cm², 10 min.). Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), spherical equivalent (SE), simulated keratometry (Sim K-1, Sim K-2, K-max, K-mean), cylindrical (CYL), pachymetry and Q-value were evaluated preoperatively and for 3 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Postoperative UDVA and CDVA did not significantly change in both groups after 3 years. Postoperative SE was increased significantly in accelerated CXL (p=0.012) with no significant change in the postoperative cylinder in both procedures. Standard CXL had greater "significant" effect in decreasing Sim K-1, K-max and K-mean. The mean reduction in postoperative corneal pachymetry (at thinnest location) was significant in standard CXL (18.4 μm) (p=0.001). No significant change was noticed in postoperative Q-value.

CONCLUSION

Standard and accelerated CXL protocols are efficient in pediatric keratoconus management with better outcomes in the standard procedure.

Transepithelial Accelerated Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking: Two-Year Results

PURPOSE

To report 2-year outcomes of trans-epithelial accelerated corneal collagen crosslinking (TE-ACXL) procedure in the treatment of progressive keratoconus patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty-four eyes from 24 patients who underwent TE-ACXL (6mW/cm2 for 15 minutes) were included in this retrospective interventional study. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), keratometry values, thinnest corneal thickness (PachyMin) and topometric indexes were analysed preoperatively and at 6-month, 12-month, 18-month and 24-month postoperative. Progression was assessed by increase ≥1.00D in maximum keratometry (Kmax); increase ≥1.00D in corneal astigmatism; decrease ≥2% in PachyMin; increase ≥0.42 in D-index.

RESULTS

There were no complications during or after TE-ACXL. No significant differences (Δ) were observed between baseline and 12-month or 24-month postoperative: ∆BCVA (-0.08 ± 0.25, p=0.190; -0.04 ± 0.17, p=0.588), ∆Kmax (-0.08 ± 1.32, p=0.792; -1.04 ± 1.89, p=0.135), ∆Astigmatism (-0.15 ± 0.89, p=0.485; -0.24 ± 1.38, p=0.609), ∆PachyMin (-0.56 ± 15.70, p=0.882; 0.56 ± 18.74, p=0.931), ∆Index Surface Variation (∆ISV) (-2.11 ± 10.27, p=0.395; -4.67 ± 17.32, p=0.442), ∆Index Vertical Asymmetry (∆IVA) (-0.05 ± 0.17, p=0.208; -0.08 ± 0.26, p=0.397), ∆Index Height Decentration (∆IHD) (0.00 ± 0.02, p=0.368; -0.01 ± 0.04, p=0.484), ∆KI (0.00 ± 0.05, p=0.851; 0.01 ± 0.06, p=0.877) and ∆D-index (0.15 ± 1.14, p=0.572; 0.06 ± 1.36, p=0.892). Eleven to 33% of patients had disease progression at 24-month postoperative according to the parameters used to determine progression.

CONCLUSION

Although some patients maintain disease progression, TE-ACXL seems to be a safe and effective treatment for keratoconus over the 2-year follow-up period. Studies with longer follow-up periods and larger patient cohorts are recommended.

Efficacy of Standard and Accelerated (10 Minutes) Corneal Crosslinking in Keratoconus Stabilization

Purpose

To evaluate whether Accelerated CXL for 10 minutes is as effective as standard CXL for 30 minutes for the treatment of progressive keratoconus.

Patients and Methods

Eighty-two eyes of 62 patients with keratometry examinations performed before and 6 months after surgery were studied. A total of 39 eyes underwent standard CXL with UVA irradiation of 3 mW/cm² for 30 minutes and 32 eyes underwent Accelerated CXL UVA irradiation of 9 mW/cm² for 10 minutes. The eyes of all patients had corneal thicknesses of at least 450 microns (400 microns after epithelium removal).

Results

The means of the keratometry measurements in the preoperative period for the eyes subjected to standard CXL were 46.27 dioptres (D) on the flat axis (K1) and 48.93 D on the steep axis (K2). Postoperatively, K1 was 46.21 D and K2 was 48.97 D, a difference without statistical significance (p = 0.47 and p = 0.48, respectively). In the Accelerated CXL protocol, the preoperative measurements were 44.55 D and 46.19 D for K1 and K2, respectively. In the postoperative period, K1 was 43.37 D, and K2 was 46.64 D (p = 0.38 and p = 0.27, respectively). In the standard group, the mean maximum keratometry (Kmax) preoperatively was 55.87 D, with no statistical significance (p = 0.29). In the preoperative period, the Kmax of the Accelerated group was 51.15 D, with no statistical significance (p = 0.32).

Conclusion

Based on the keratometry results, the accelerated protocol was as effective as the standard protocol for keratoconus stabilization.