International Journal of Keratoconus and Ectatic Corneal Diseases

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  10 (2023)
Volume  9 (2020)
Volume  8 (2019)
Volume  7 (2018)
Volume  6 (2017)
Volume  5 (2016)
Volume  4 (2015)
Volume  3 (2014)
Volume  2 (2013)
Volume  1 (2012)
Related articles

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 1--2 ( January-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Two-year Outcomes of Transepithelial Customized Cross-linking for Mild to Moderate Keratoconus

Miltos Balidis, Spyridon Koronis, Penelope Burle de Politis, Georgios Sidiropoulos, Achilleas Rasoglou

Keywords : Corneal collagen cross-linking, Keratoconus, Transepithelial cross-linking

Citation Information : Balidis M, Koronis S, de Politis PB, Sidiropoulos G, Rasoglou A. Two-year Outcomes of Transepithelial Customized Cross-linking for Mild to Moderate Keratoconus. Int J Kerat Ect Cor Dis 2023; 10 (1--2):26-31.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10025-1196

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 23-04-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background/Aim: Corneal cross-linking remains the only treatment option capable of halting keratoconus progression. Customized cross-linking is a new topographically-guided protocol consisting of irradiating different corneal treatment zones with variable energy beam profiles. In this study cohort, customized cross-linking was combined with sustained oxygen delivery and high-energy pulsed UV-A irradiation at the apex of the cone, without epithelial debridement. This paper presents outcomes through 24 months postoperatively in keratoconus patients treated with this tailored cross-linking procedure. Materials and methods: This study involves 54 eyes of 43 patients with keratoconus. Visual acuity and corneal topography were recorded preoperatively. Every patient was examined at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively and corneal topography and anterior optical coherence tomography were performed. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), Kmax values, anterior and posterior elevation, and demarcation line depth were recorded. Results: Median CDVA improved from 0.14 to 0.01 logMAR (p < 0.001) at the 24-month visit. Kmax was successfully reduced from 53.2 ± 8.2 D to 51.5 ± 9.0 D (p < 0.001). Median anterior elevation decreased from 16 to 15 μm (p = 0.01), while median posterior elevation remained stable at 40 μm (p = 0.35), at 12 months. In the first postoperative month, the mean demarcation line depth was 344.6 ± 62.8 μm, equating to 72.7 ± 10.9% of corneal thickness. Conclusion: Customized corneal cross-linking is a safe and effective procedure for the management of keratoconus, customized and less invasive than cross-linking with epithelial removal. Our encouraging results and minimal complication rates point to a very promising technique that may change the standards for cross-linking. What is already known on this topic • Transepithelial cross-linking previously has been found to have lower effectiveness than standard cross-linking with epithelial debridement. • Customized high-energy pulsed UV-A delivery profiles and oxygen supplementation, as in the present procedure, may enhance the effectiveness of transepithelial cross-linking. What this study adds • At 2 years of follow-up, customized transepithelial oxygen-supplemented cross-linking appears to be an effective procedure for keratoconus, with results generally comparable to the Dresden protocol. • This high-energy procedure was well-tolerated, with minimal adverse events. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy • This study may contribute to the establishment of customized corneal cross-linking as a gold-standard treatment for the stabilization of keratoconus.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol 1998;42(4):297–319. DOI: 10.1016/S0039-6257(97)00119-7.
  2. Javadi MA, Motlagh BF, Jafarinasab MR, et al. Cornea 2005;24(8): 294–296. DOI: 10.1097/01.ico.0000159730.45177.cd.
  3. Seiler TG, Batista A, Frueh BE, et al. Riboflavin concentrations at the endothelium during corneal cross-linking in humans. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2019;60(6):2140–2145. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.19-26686.
  4. Dhawan S, Rao K, Natrajan S. Complications of corneal collagen cross-linking. J Ophthalmol 2011;2011:1–5. DOI: 10.1155/2011/869015.
  5. Ghanem VC, Ghanem RC, de Oliveira R. Postoperative pain after corneal collagen cross-linking. Cornea 2013;32(1):20–24. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31824d6fe3.
  6. Lim WK, Soh ZD, Choi HKY, et al. Epithelium-on photorefractive intrastromal cross-linking (PiXL) for reduction of low myopia. Clin Ophthalmol 2017;11:1205–1211. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S137712.
  7. Kluger R, Alagic A. Chemical cross-linking and protein–protein interactions—A review with illustrative protocols. Bioorg Chem 2004;32(6):451–472. DOI: 10.1016/j.bioorg.2004.08.002.
  8. Richoz O, Hammer A, Tabibian D, et al. The biomechanical effect of corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) with riboflavin and UV-A is oxygen dependent. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2013;2(7):6. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.2.7.6.
  9. Mazzotta C, Bagaglia SA, Vinciguerra R, et al. Enhanced-fluence pulsed-light iontophoresis corneal cross-linking: 1-year morphological and clinical results. J Refract Surg 2018;34(7):438–444. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20180515-02.
  10. Roy AS, Dupps WJ. Patient-specific computational modeling of keratoconus progression and differential responses to collagen cross-linking. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52(12):9174–9187. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-7395.
  11. Mazzotta C, Moramarco A, Traversi C, et al. Accelerated corneal collagen cross-linking using topography-guided UV-A energy emission: Preliminary clinical and morphological outcomes. J Ophthalmol 2016;2016:1–10. DOI: 10.1155/2016/2031031.
  12. Mazzotta C, Sgheri A, Bagaglia SA, et al. Customized corneal crosslinking for treatment of progressive keratoconus: Clinical and OCT outcomes using a transepithelial approach with supplemental oxygen. J Cataract Refract Surg 2020;46(12):1582–1587. DOI: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000347.
  13. Seiler TG, Fischinger I, Koller T, et al. Customized corneal cross-linking: One-year results. Am J Ophthalmol 2016;166:14–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.02.029.
  14. Kocak I, Aydin A, Kaya F, et al. Comparison of transepithelial corneal collagen crosslinking with epithelium-off crosslinking in progressive keratoconus. J Fr Ophtalmol 2014;37(5):371–376. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfo.2013.11.012.
  15. Stojanovic A, Zhou W, Utheim TP. Corneal collagen cross-linking with and without epithelial removal: A contralateral study with 0.5% hypotonic riboflavin solution. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014. DOI: 10.1155/2014/619398.
  16. Bikbova G, Bikbov M. Standard corneal collagen crosslinking versus transepithelial iontophoresis-assisted corneal crosslinking, 24 months follow-up: Randomized control trial. Acta Ophthalmol 2016;94(7):e600–e606. DOI: 10.1111/aos.13032.
  17. Hashemian H, Jabbarvand M, Khodaparast M, et al. Evaluation of corneal changes after conventional versus accelerated corneal cross-linking: A randomized controlled trial. J Refract Surg 2014;30(12): 837–842. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20141117-02.
  18. Hashemi H, Miraftab M, Seyedian MA, et al. Long-term results of an accelerated corneal cross-linking protocol (18 mW/cm2) for the treatment of progressive keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 2015;160(6):1164–1170.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.08.027.
  19. Cummings AB, McQuaid R, Naughton S, et al. Optimizing corneal cross-linking in the treatment of keratoconus: A comparison of outcomes after standard-and high-intensity protocols. Cornea 2016;35(6):814–822. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000823.
  20. Kymionis GD, Tsoulnaras KI, Grentzelos MA, et al. Corneal stroma demarcation line after standard and high-intensity collagen crosslinking determined with anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 2014;40(5):736–740. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.10.029.
  21. Tomita M, Mita M, Huseynova T. Accelerated versus conventional corneal collagen crosslinking. J Cataract Refract Surg 2014;40(6): 1013–1020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.12.012.
  22. Brittingham S, Tappeiner C, Frueh BE. Corneal cross-linking in keratoconus using the standard and rapid treatment protocol: Differences in demarcation line and 12-month outcomes. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014;55(12):8371–8376. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.14-15444.
  23. Shetty R, Pahuja NK, Nuijts RMMA, et al. Current protocols of corneal collagen cross-linking: Visual, refractive, and tomographic outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol 2015;160(2):243–249. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.05.019.
  24. Spoerl E, Mrochen M, Sliney D, et al. Safety of UVA-riboflavin cross-linking of the cornea. Cornea 2007;26(4):385–389. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3180334f78.
  25. Schumacher S, Mrochen M, Wernli J, et al. Optimization model for UV-riboflavin corneal cross-linking. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53(2):762–769. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-8059.
  26. Sachdev GS, Ramamurthy S, Dandapani R. Photorefractive intrastromal corneal crosslinking for treatment of low myopia: Clinical outcomes using the transepithelial approach with supplemental oxygen. J Cataract Refract Surg 2020;46(3):428–433. DOI: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000073.
  27. El Hout S, Cassagne M, Sales de Gauzy T, et al. Transepithelial photorefractive intrastromal corneal crosslinking versus photorefractive keratectomy in low myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2019;45(4):427–436. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.11.008.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.