To assess the influence of epithelium-off (epi-off) crosslinking (CXL) on overall flattening of the cone & pachymetry and in different cone locations (central, paracentral, and peripheral) at 5-year and to analyse preoperative factors influencing cone flattening at 5-year in keratoconus.
Methods
All patients with at least 5-year follow-up were included. Data was collected on age, sex, and cone location. Cone location (Central (3 mm centrally), paracentral (3–5 mm) and peripheral (beyond 5 mm)) were classified based on maximum keratometry (Kmax). Data was collected for preoperative, 1-, and 5-year visits. Anterior Kmax and thinnest pachymetry changes were also analysed for various cone locations. Stepwise backward multiple regression analysis was performed to look at the preoperative factors (sex, age, cone location, preoperative Kmax, and thinnest pachymetry) influencing cone flattening at 5-year.
Results
53 eyes (53 patients) (M:F = 36:17) were included. There was a significant change between preoperative Vs. 5-year Kmax (P < 0.01) and they were significantly correlated (r = 0.86, p < 0.01). Peripheral and paracentral cones flattened more at 5-year. Whereas there was a significant thinning between preoperative and at 1-year only (P = 0.01) and they were significantly correlated too (r = 0.83, p < 0.01). Central cones thinned more over 5-year. Only preoperative Kmax was significantly correlated to postoperative cone flattening at 5-year.
Conclusion
There is a significant flattening at 5-year and peripheral and paracentral cones flattened more. Whereas significant thinning of the cones were only observed until 1-year and central cones thinned more. Flattening of cone at 5-year was only related to preoperative Kmax.
RebenitschRLKymesSMWallineJJ,et al.The lifetime economic burden of keratoconus: a decision analysis using a markov model. Am J Ophthalmol2011; 151: 768–773.e2. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2010.10.034
2.
JacobSPatelSRAgarwalA, et al.Corneal allogenic intrastromal ring segments (CAIRS) combined with corneal cross-linking for keratoconus. J Refract Surg2018; 34: 296–303. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20180223-01
3.
MohammadpourMHeidariZHashemiH. Updates on managements for keratoconus. J Curr Ophthalmol2018; 30: 110–124. doi:10.1016/j.joco.2017.11.002
4.
TorquettiLBerbelRFFerraraP. Long-term follow-up of intrastromal corneal ring segments in keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg2009; 35: 1768–1773. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.05.036
5.
Raiskup-WolfFHoyerASpoerlE,et al.Collagen crosslinking with riboflavin and ultraviolet-A light in keratoconus: long-term results. J Cataract Refract Surg2008; 34: 796–801. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.12.039
6.
WollensakGSpoerlESeilerT. Stress-strain measurements of human and porcine corneas after riboflavin-ultraviolet-A-induced cross-linking. J Cataract Refract Surg2003; 29: 1780–1785. doi:10.1016/S0886-3350(03)00407-3
7.
BardanASKubrak-KiszaMKiszaKJ,et al.Impact of classifying keratoconus location based on keratometry or pachymetry on progression parameters. Clin Exp Optom2020; 103: 312–319. doi:10.1111/cxo.12927
8.
GodefrooijDABoomKSoetersN, et al.Predictors for treatment outcomes after corneal crosslinking for keratoconus: a validation study. Int Ophthalmol2017; 37: 341–348. doi:10.1007/s10792-016-0262-z
9.
WisseRPGodefrooijDASoetersN, et al.A multivariate analysis and statistical model for predicting visual acuity and keratometry one year after cross-linking for keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol2014; 157: 519–525.e2 . doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.11.001
10.
CaporossiAMazzottaCBaiocchiS,et al.Long-term results of riboflavin ultraviolet a corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus in Italy: the Siena eye cross study. Am J Ophthalmol2010; 149(4): 585–593. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.10.021
11.
KandelHAbbondanzaMGuptaA, et al.Comparison of standard versus accelerated corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus: 5-year outcomes from the Save Sight Keratoconus Registry. Eye (Lond)2024; 38: 95–102. doi:10.1038/s41433-023-02641-6
12.
AkcayEDeliogluENEKarsME, et al.Evaluation of unilateral corneal collagen cross-linking on fellow untreated eyes of patients with keratoconus. Arq Bras Oftalmol2022; 87. doi:10.5935/0004-2749.2022-0004
13.
FerdiANguyenVKandelH, et al.Predictors of progression in untreated keratoconus: a Save Sight Keratoconus Registry study. Br J Ophthalmol2022; 106: 1206–1211. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-317547
14.
LinKKChenYWYehCT, et al.Comparing the natural progression and clinical features of keratoconus between pediatric and adult patients. Sci Rep2022; 12: 8278. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-12070-2
15.
DeshmukhROngZZRampatR, et al.Management of keratoconus: an updated review. Front Med (Lausanne)2023; 10: 1212314. doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.1212314
16.
RomanoVVinciguerraRArbabiEM, et al.Progression of keratoconus in patients while awaiting corneal cross-linking: a prospective clinical study. J Refract Surg2018; 34: 177–180. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20180104-01
17.
PaganoLGadhviKABorroniD, et al.Bilateral keratoconus progression: immediate versus delayed sequential bilateral corneal cross-linking. J Refract Surg2020; 36: 552–556. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20200629-01
18.
DongRLiuYZhangY,et al.The application of corneal biomechanical interocular asymmetry for the diagnosis of keratoconus and subclinical keratoconus. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2023; 11: 1266940. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2023.1266940
19.
GodefrooijDAGansRImhofSM,et al.Nationwide reduction in the number of corneal transplantations for keratoconus following the implementation of cross-linking. Acta Ophthalmol2016; 94: 675–678. doi:10.1111/aos.13095
20.
SandvikGFThorsrudARaenM, et al.Does corneal collagen cross-linking reduce the need for keratoplasties in patients with keratoconus?Cornea2015; 34: 991–995. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000000460
21.
PoliMLefevreAAuxenfansC,et al.Corneal collagen cross-linking for the treatment of progressive corneal ectasia: 6-year prospective outcome in a French population. Am J Ophthalmol2015; 160: 654–662.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2015.06.027
22.
VinciguerraRRomanoMRCamesascaFI, et al.Corneal cross-linking as a treatment for keratoconus: four-year morphologic and clinical outcomes with respect to patient age. Ophthalmology2013; 120: 908–916. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.10.023
23.
HashemiHSeyedianMAMiraftabM, et al.Corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and ultraviolet a irradiation for keratoconus: long-term results. Ophthalmology2013; 120: 1515–1520. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.012
24.
Wittig-SilvaCChanEIslamFM, et al.A randomized, controlled trial of corneal collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconus: three-year results. Ophthalmology2014; 121: 812–821. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.10.028
25.
GreensteinSAFryKLHershPS. Effect of topographic cone location on outcomes of corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia. J Refract Surg2012; 28: 397–405. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20120518-02
26.
BadawiAEAbou SamraWAEl GhafarAA. Predictive factors of the standard cross-linking outcomes in adult keratoconus: one-year follow-up. J Ophthalmol2017; 2017: 4109208. doi:10.1155/2017/4109208
27.
AshenaZDohertySGokulA, et al.Flattening of central, paracentral, and peripheral cones after non-accelerated and accelerated epithelium-off CXL in keratoconus: a multicenter study. J Refract Surg2022; 38: 310–316. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20220404-02
28.
GoldichYBarkanaYWussuku LiorO, et al.Corneal collagen cross-linking for the treatment of progressive keratoconus: 3-year prospective outcome. Can J Ophthalmol2014; 49: 54–59. doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2013.09.002
29.
RaiskupFTheuringAPillunatLE,et al.Corneal collagen crosslinking with riboflavin and ultraviolet-A light in progressive keratoconus: ten-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg2015; 41: 41–46. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.09.033
30.
AyvazABrekelmansJBerendschotT, et al.Five years outcomes after corneal cross-linking for keratoconus. Journal of EuCornea2020; 6: 9–12. doi:10.1016/j.xjec.2019.12.004
31.
KollerTMrochenMSeilerT. Complication and failure rates after corneal crosslinking. J Cataract Refract Surg2009; 35: 1358–1362. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.03.035
GreensteinSAHershPS. Characteristics influencing outcomes of corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus and ectasia: implications for patient selection. J Cataract Refract Surg2013; 39: 1133–1140. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.06.007
34.
JordanCPatelDVAbeysekeraN,et al.In vivo confocal microscopy analyses of corneal microstructural changes in a prospective study of collagen cross-linking in keratoconus. Ophthalmology2014; 121: 469–474. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.09.014
35.
KollerTPajicBVinciguerraP,et al.Flattening of the cornea after collagen crosslinking for keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg2011; 37: 1488–1492. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.03.041
36.
CassagneMPierneKGaliacySD, et al.Customized topography-guided corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus. J Refract Surg2017; 33: 290–297. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20170201-02
37.
SachdevGSRamamurthySSoundariyaB,et al.Comparative analysis of safety and efficacy of topography-guided customized cross-linking and standard cross-linking in the treatment of progressive keratoconus. Cornea2021; 40: 188–193. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000002492
38.
GreensteinSAShahVPFryKL,et al.Corneal thickness changes after corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: one-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg2011; 37: 691–700. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.10.052
39.
NgALChanTCChengAC. Conventional versus accelerated corneal collagen cross-linking in the treatment of keratoconus. Clin Exp Ophthalmol2016; 44: 8–14. doi:10.1111/ceo.12571
40.
WollensakGIomdinaEDittertDD,et al.Wound healing in the rabbit cornea after corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and UVA. Cornea2007; 26: 600–605. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e318041f073
41.
Sefic KasumovicSRacic-SakovicAKasumovicA, et al.Assessment of the tomographic values in keratoconic eyes after collagen crosslinking procedure. Med Arch2015; 69: 91–94. doi:10.5455/medarh.2015.69.91-94
42.
MazzottaCTraversiCBaiocchiS, et al.Corneal healing after riboflavin ultraviolet-A collagen cross-linking determined by confocal laser scanning microscopy in vivo: early and late modifications. Am J Ophthalmol2008; 146: 527–533. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2008.05.042
