To compare the corneal biomechanical characteristics following accelerated cross-linking (A-CXL) and diluted alcohol and iontophoresis-assisted corneal cross-linking (DAI-CXL).
Methods
Forty-nine eyes from 41 patients who underwent DAI-CXL or A-CXL for progressive keratoconus were included. Visual acuity, topographic, and biomechanical data were analyzed preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively.
Results
A significant decrease in flat keratometry (K1) and thinnest corneal thickness (TCT) was observed in the A-CXL group between baseline and postoperatively (K1, p = 0.001; TCT: p = 0.007). Both groups showed a significant decrease in steep keratometry (K2) and maximum keratometry (Kmax) compared to baseline (K2: p = 0.03, p < 0.001, respectively; Kmax: p < 0.001 for both groups). Postoperatively, highest concavity time (HCT) was significantly lower (p = 0.007), and highest concavity peak distance (HCPD) was significantly higher (p = 0.034) in the DAI-CXL group compared to the A-CXL group. A significant increase in applanation 1 velocity (A1V), HCPD, and deformation amplitude (DA) (p = 0.03, 0.007, 0.02, respectively) and a decrease in Ambrósio relational thickness to the horizontal profile (ARTh) (p < 0.001) were noted in the A-CXL group at 12 months. The DAI-CXL group showed a significant decrease in HCT, integrated radius (IR), and ARTh (p = 0.006, 0.011, 0.009, respectively) between baseline and postoperative assessments. Corvis Biomechanical Factor (CBiF) and E-stage remained stable in both groups.
Conclusion
DAI-CXL and A-CXL demonstrate comparable efficacy in achieving visual, topographic, and biomechanical stabilization in progressive keratoconus over a 12-month period.
LiXRabinowitzYSRasheedK, et al.Longitudinal study of the normal eyes in unilateral keratoconus patients. Ophthalmology2004; 111: 440–446.
2.
RabinowitzYSGalvisVTelloA, et al.Genetics vs chronic corneal mechanical trauma in the etiology of keratoconus. Exp Eye Res2021; 202: 108328.
3.
KhawajaAPRojas LopezKEHardcastleAJ, et al.Genetic variants associated with corneal biomechanical properties and potentially conferring susceptibility to keratoconus in a genome-wide association study. JAMA Ophthalmol2019; 137: 1005–1012.
4.
WollensakGSpoerlESeilerT. Riboflavin/ultraviolet-a-induced collagen crosslinking for the treatment of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol2003; 135: 620–627.
5.
SpoerlEHuhleMSeilerT. Induction of cross-links in corneal tissue. Exp Eye Res1998; 66: 97–103.
6.
ShajariMKolbCMAghaB, et al.Comparison of standard and accelerated corneal cross-linking for the treatment of keratoconus: a meta-analysis. Acta Ophthalmol2019; 97: e22–e35.
7.
KobashiHTsubotaK. Accelerated versus standard corneal cross-linking for progressive keratoconus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cornea2020; 39: 172–180.
8.
KollerTMrochenMSeilerT. Complication and failure rates after corneal crosslinking. J Cataract Refract Surg2009; 35: 1358–1362.
9.
AbboudaAAbiccaIAlióJL. Infectious keratitis following corneal crosslinking: a systematic review of reported cases: management, visual outcome, and treatment proposed. Semin Ophthalmol2016; 31: 485–491.
MastropasquaLNubileMCaliennoR, et al.Corneal cross-linking: intrastromal riboflavin concentration in iontophoresis-assisted imbibition versus traditional and transepithelial techniques. Am J Ophthalmol2014; 157: 623–30.e1.
12.
VinciguerraPRandlemanJBRomanoV, et al.Transepithelial iontophoresis corneal collagen cross-linking for progressive keratoconus: initial clinical outcomes. J Refract Surg2014; 30: 746–753.
NgSMHawkinsBSKuoIC. Transepithelial versus epithelium-off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus: findings from a cochrane systematic review. Am J Ophthalmol2021; 229: 274–287.
15.
BilgihanKYesilirmakNAltayY, et al.Conventional corneal collagen cross-linking versus transepithelial diluted alcohol and iontophoresis-assisted corneal cross-linking in progressive keratoconus. Cornea2017; 36: 1492–1497.
16.
BilgihanKUysalBSÖzmenMC, et al.Transepithelial diluted alcohol and iontophoresis-assisted corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus in adults: 4-year clinical results. Cornea2022; 41: 462–469.
17.
DuppsWJJWilsonSE. Biomechanics and wound healing in the cornea. Exp Eye Res2006; 83: 709–720.
18.
LuceDA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg2005; 31: 156–162.
19.
HonYLamAKC. Corneal deformation measurement using scheimpflug noncontact tonometry. Optom Vis Sci Off Publ Am Acad Optom2013; 90: e1–e8.
20.
OrtizDPiñeroDShabayekMH, et al.Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post-laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg2007; 33: 1371–1375.
21.
HerberRFrancisMSpoerlE, et al.Evaluation of biomechanical changes after accelerated cross-linking in progressive keratoconus: a prospective follow-up study. Cornea2023; 42: 1365–1376.
22.
FuchslugerTABrettlSGeerlingG, et al.Biomechanical assessment of healthy and keratoconic corneas (with/without crosslinking) using dynamic ultrahigh-speed Scheimpflug technology and the relevance of the parameter (A1L-A2L). Br J Ophthalmol2019; 103: 558–564.
23.
HuseynovaTWaringGO4thRobertsC, et al.Corneal biomechanics as a function of intraocular pressure and pachymetry by dynamic infrared signal and Scheimpflug imaging analysis in normal eyes. Am J Ophthalmol2014; 157: 885–893.
24.
AmbrósioRJCorreiaFFLopesB, et al.Corneal biomechanics in ectatic diseases: refractive surgery implications. Open Ophthalmol J2017; 11: 176–193.
25.
SedaghatM-RMomeni-MoghaddamHAmbrósioRJ, et al.Diagnostic ability of corneal shape and biomechanical parameters for detecting frank keratoconus. Cornea2018; 37: 1025–1034.
26.
VinciguerraRElsheikhARobertsCJ, et al.Influence of pachymetry and intraocular pressure on dynamic corneal response parameters in healthy patients. J Refract Surg2016; 32: 550–561.
27.
JianWTianMZhangX, et al.One-Year follow-up of corneal biomechanical changes after accelerated transepithelial corneal cross-linking in pediatric patients with progressive keratoconus. Front Med2021; 8: 663494.
28.
EliasyAChenK-JVinciguerraR, et al.Determination of corneal biomechanical behavior in-vivo for healthy eyes using CorVis ST tonometry: stress-strain Index. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2019; 7: 105.
29.
FlockerziEXanthopoulouKDaasL, et al.Evaluation of dynamic corneal response parameters and the biomechanical E-staging after accelerated corneal cross-linking in keratoconus. Asia-Pacific J Ophthalmol (Philadelphia, Pa)2022; 11: 514–520.
30.
VinciguerraRAmbrósioRJElsheikhA, et al.Detection of keratoconus with a new biomechanical Index. J Refract Surg2016; 32: 803–810.
31.
HerberRVinciguerraRLopesB, et al.Repeatability and reproducibility of corneal deformation response parameters of dynamic ultra-high-speed scheimpflug imaging in keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg2020; 46: 86–94.
32.
YeCYuMLaiG, et al.Variability of corneal deformation response in normal and keratoconic eyes. Optom Vis Sci Off Publ Am Acad Optom2015; 92: e149–e153.
33.
RobertsCJMahmoudAMBonsJP, et al.Introduction of two novel stiffness parameters and interpretation of air puff-induced biomechanical deformation parameters with a dynamic scheimpflug analyzer. J Refract Surg2017; 33: 266–273.
34.
LombardoMGianniniDLombardoG, et al.Randomized controlled trial comparing transepithelial corneal cross-linking using iontophoresis with the Dresden protocol in progressive keratoconus. Ophthalmology2017; 124: 804–812.
35.
WollensakGIomdinaE. Biomechanical and histological changes after corneal crosslinking with and without epithelial debridement. J Cataract Refract Surg2009; 35: 540–546.
36.
CaporossiAMazzottaCParadisoAL, et al.Transepithelial corneal collagen crosslinking for progressive keratoconus: 24-month clinical results. J Cataract Refract Surg2013; 39: 1157–1163.
37.
VinciguerraRTzamalisARomanoV, et al.Assessment of the association between in vivo corneal biomechanical changes after corneal cross-linking and depth of demarcation line. J Refract Surg2019; 35: 202–206.
38.
OuyangB-WDingHWangH, et al.Comparison of corneal biological parameters between transepithelial and epithelium-off corneal cross-linking in keratoconus. Int J Ophthalmol2021; 14: 998–1005.
39.
NishidaTKojimaTKataokaT, et al.Comparison of corneal biomechanical properties and corneal tomography between customized and accelerated corneal crosslinking in eyes with keratoconus. Cornea2021; 40: 851–858.
40.
Bak-NielsenSPedersenIBIvarsenA, et al.Dynamic scheimpflug-based assessment of keratoconus and the effects of corneal cross-linking. J Refract Surg2014; 30: 408–414.
41.
PahujaNKumarNRFrancisM, et al.Correlation of clinical and biomechanical outcomes of accelerated crosslinking (9 mW/cm(2) in 10 min) in keratoconus with molecular expression of ectasia-related genes. Curr Eye Res2016; 41: 1419–1423.
42.
FlockerziEVinciguerraRBelinMW, et al.Combined biomechanical and tomographic keratoconus staging: adding a biomechanical parameter to the ABCD keratoconus staging system. Acta Ophthalmol2022; 100: e1135–e1142.
43.
HashemiHAmbrósioRJVinciguerraR, et al.Two-year changes in corneal stiffness parameters after accelerated corneal cross-linking. J Biomech2019; 93: 209–212.
44.
FelterEKhoramniaRFriedrichM, et al.Biomechanical changes following corneal crosslinking in keratoconus patients. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol = Albr von Graefes Arch fur Klin und Exp Ophthalmol. Epub ahead of print June 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-024-06549-z
45.
RossAKMSchlunckGBöhringerD, et al.Characterization of the immediate and delayed biomechanical response to UV-A crosslinking of human corneas. Cornea2023; 42: 1163–1171.
46.
XanthopoulouKSeitzBBelinMW, et al.Reliability analysis of successive corvis ST® measurements in keratoconus 2 years after accelerated corneal crosslinking compared to untreated keratoconus corneas. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol = Albr von Graefes Arch fur Klin und Exp Ophthalmol2023; 261: 1055–1061.
47.
HashemiHRobertsCAmbrósioR, et al.Comparative contralateral randomized clinical trial of standard (3 mW/cm2) versus accelerated (9 mW/cm2) CXL in patients with down syndrome: 3-year results. J Refract Surg2022; 38: 381–388.
