To study the effect of corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) using riboflavin and ultraviolet rays on cases of corneal ectasia in keratoconus cases, post-laser–assisted in situ keratomileusis ectasia, and pellucid marginal degeneration and to present its long-term results over many years.
Methods
This study was conducted throughout 10 “years” experience in corneal collagen CXL, including 6120 cases. The study consists of two parts: a retrospective and a prospective part. All patients in the retrospective part were operated by epi-off, while in the prospective part, the epi-on procedure was used. Also, other machines were used as Peschke Vario, Peschke Phoenix, and different types of riboflavin. The results were analyzed using SPSS.
Results
The study showed stabilization ectasia in 95% of cases using our standard protocol, and this was proved by topography, pachymetry, refraction, and visual acuity. The effect of CXL was continued in 20% of cases, over a period of 3–5 years, some cases needed to repeat CXL due to the progression of corneal ectasia after cross-linking, in six eyes, that were rubbing their eyes and/or hormonal disturbance.
Conclusion
Corneal collagen cross-linking CXL is an effective method to prevent the progression of corneal ectasia, whether primary or post-laser–assisted in situ keratomileusis, and the effect was stable over the years of study.
HassanZ, Nemeth G, Modis L, et al.Collagen cross-linking in the treatment of pellucid marginal degeneration.Indian J Ophthalmol2014;
62(3): 367–370.
6.
Mojaled NobariS, Villena C and Jadidi K.Full-ring intracorneal implantation in corneas with pellucid marginal degeneration. Iran Red Crescent Med J2015;
17(12): e28974.
7.
HamiltonDR, Johnson RD, Lee N, et al.Differences in the corneal biomechanical effects of surface ablation compared with laser in situ keratomileusis using a microkeratome or femtosecond laser. J Cataract Refract Surg2008;
34(12): 2049–2056, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19027558
8.
DouR, Wang Y, Xu L, et al.Comparison of corneal biomechanical characteristics after surface ablation refractive surgery and novel lamellar refractive surgery. Cornea2015;
34(11): 1441–1446, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26226471
KollerT, Mrochen M and Seiler T.Complication and failure rates after corneal crosslinking. J Cataract Refract Surg2009;
35(8): 1358–1362, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19631120
13.
SeilerTG, Schmidinger G, Fischinger I, et al.
Komplikationen der vernetzung der hornhaut. Ophthalmologe2013;
110(7): 639–644.
14.
HuseynliSand Abdulaliyeva F.Evaluation of Scheimpflug tomography parameters in subclinical keratoconus, clinical keratoconus and normal Caucasian eyes.Turkish J Ophthalmol2018;
48(3): 99–108, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29988819
15.
HashemiH, Beiranvand A, Yekta A, et al.Pentacam top indices for diagnosing subclinical and definite keratoconus. J Curr Ophthalmol2016;
28(1): 21–26.
16.
RosenblatEand Hersh PS.Intraoperative corneal thickness change and clinical outcomes after corneal collagen crosslinking: Standard crosslinking versus hypotonic riboflavin. J Cataract Refract Surg2016;
42(4): 596–605, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27113884
17.
KruegerRRand Spoerl EHS. Rapid vs standard collagen CXL with equivalent energy dosing. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking, Zurich, 8–10 December 2007.
18.
CifarielloF, Minicucci M, Di Renzo F, et al.Epi-off versus epi-on corneal collagen cross-linking in keratoconus patients: a comparative study through 2-year follow-up.J Ophthalmol2018;
2018: 4947983.
19.
CummingsAB, McQuaid R and Mrochen M.Newer protocols and future in collagen cross-linking.Indian J Ophthalmol2013;
61(8): 425–427.
20.
ZaheerN, Khan WA, Khan S, et al.Comparison of changes in central corneal thickness during corneal collagen cross-linking, using isotonic riboflavin solutions with and without dextran, in the treatment of progressive keratoconus. Cornea2018;
37(3): 340–346.
21.
SeilerTG, Fischinger I, Koller T, et al.Customized corneal cross-linking: one-year results.Am J Ophthalmol2016;
166:14–21.
22.
ElhelalyAE, AlBasher G, Alfarraj S, et al.Protective effects of hesperidin and diosmin against acrylamide-induced liver, kidney, and brain oxidative damage in rats.Environ Sci Pollut Res2019;
26: 35151–35162.
23.
JoharD, Ahmed SM, El Hayek S, et al.
Diabetes-induced proteome changes throughout development.Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets2019;
19(6): 732–743.
NotaraM, Lentzsch A, Coroneo M, et al.
The role of limbal epithelial stem cells in regulating corneal (Lymph)angiogenic privilege and the micromilieu of the limbal niche following UV exposure.Stem Cells Int2018;
2018: 8620172.
27.
KollerT, Pajic B, Vinciguerra P, et al.
Flattening of the cornea after collagen crosslinking for keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg2011;
37(8): 1488–1492, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21782091
28.
PaulT, Lim M, Starr CE, et al.
Central corneal thickness as measured by Orbscan II, ultrasound pachymeter and Artemis-2. J Cataract Refract Surg2008;
34(11): 1906, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19006737
29.
Tomás-JuanJ, Murueta-Goyena Larrañaga A and Hanneken L.Corneal regeneration after photorefractive keratectomy: a review.J Optom2015;
8(3): 149–169.
30.
RubinfeldRS, Stulting RD, Gum GG, et al.
Quantitative analysis of corneal stromal riboflavin concentration without epithelial removal. J Cataract Refract Surg2018;
44(2): 237–242.
31.
StultingRD, Trattler WB, Woolfson JM, et al.Corneal crosslinking without epithelial removal. J Cataract Refract Surg2018;
44(11): 1363–1370.
