Cargando…
Epi-Off versus Epi-On Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking in Keratoconus Patients: A Comparative Study through 2-Year Follow-Up
AIM: To evaluate two different techniques of cross-linking: standard epithelium-off (CXL epi-off) versus transepithelial (CXL epi-on) cross-linking in patient with progressive keratoconus. METHODS: Forty eyes from 32 patients with progressive keratoconus were prospectively enrolled from June 2014 to...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6087595/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30151277 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/4947983 |
_version_ | 1783346706204590080 |
---|---|
author | Cifariello, F. Minicucci, M. Di Renzo, F. Di Taranto, D. Coclite, G. Zaccaria, S. De Turris, S. Costagliola, C. |
author_facet | Cifariello, F. Minicucci, M. Di Renzo, F. Di Taranto, D. Coclite, G. Zaccaria, S. De Turris, S. Costagliola, C. |
author_sort | Cifariello, F. |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: To evaluate two different techniques of cross-linking: standard epithelium-off (CXL epi-off) versus transepithelial (CXL epi-on) cross-linking in patient with progressive keratoconus. METHODS: Forty eyes from 32 patients with progressive keratoconus were prospectively enrolled from June 2014 to June 2015 in this nonblinded, randomized comparative study. Twenty eyes were treated by CXL epi-off and 20 by CLX epi-on, randomly assigned, and followed for 2 years. All patients underwent a complete ophthalmologic testing that included uncorrected and best corrected visual acuity, central and peripheral corneal thickness, corneal astigmatism, simulated maximum, minimum, and average keratometry, corneal confocal microscopy, Schirmer I and break-up time (BUT) tests, and the Ocular Surface Disease Index. Intra- and postoperative complications were recorded. The solution used for CXL epi-off comprised riboflavin 0.1% and dextran 20.0% (Ricrolin), whereas the solution for CXL epi-on (Ricrolin TE) comprised riboflavin 0.1%, dextran 15.0%, trometamol (Tris), and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Ultraviolet-A treatment was performed with a UV-X system at 3 mW/cm(2). RESULTS: In both groups, a significant improvement in visual function (Group 1: baseline 0.36 ± 0.16 logMAR, two-year follow-up 0.22 ± 0.17 logMAR, p=0.01; Group 2: baseline 0.32 ± 0.18 logMAR, 2-year follow-up 0.27 ± 0.19 logMAR, p=0.01) was recorded. Keratometry remained unchanged in both groups. The mean corneal thickness showed a significant reduction (mean difference of corneal thickness: −55 micron and −71 micron, resp.). One-month after treatment, OSDI(©) reached 13.56 ± 2.15 in Group 1 (p=0.03) and 11.26 ± 2.12 in Group 2 (p=0.04). At confocal microscopy, abnormal corneal nerve alterations were found in both groups. Fibrotic reaction (43.75%) and activated keratocyte (62.6%) were more commonly recorded in Group 1 than in Group 2 (25.0% and 18.75%), with p=0.668 and 0.356, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that both procedures are able to slow keratoconus progression. Both treatment modalities are equivalent in terms of results and related complications. CXL epi-on technique is preferable to CXL epi-off since it preserves the corneal thickness and improves visual acuity, also reducing the postoperative ocular discomfort during the study period. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6087595 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60875952018-08-27 Epi-Off versus Epi-On Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking in Keratoconus Patients: A Comparative Study through 2-Year Follow-Up Cifariello, F. Minicucci, M. Di Renzo, F. Di Taranto, D. Coclite, G. Zaccaria, S. De Turris, S. Costagliola, C. J Ophthalmol Clinical Study AIM: To evaluate two different techniques of cross-linking: standard epithelium-off (CXL epi-off) versus transepithelial (CXL epi-on) cross-linking in patient with progressive keratoconus. METHODS: Forty eyes from 32 patients with progressive keratoconus were prospectively enrolled from June 2014 to June 2015 in this nonblinded, randomized comparative study. Twenty eyes were treated by CXL epi-off and 20 by CLX epi-on, randomly assigned, and followed for 2 years. All patients underwent a complete ophthalmologic testing that included uncorrected and best corrected visual acuity, central and peripheral corneal thickness, corneal astigmatism, simulated maximum, minimum, and average keratometry, corneal confocal microscopy, Schirmer I and break-up time (BUT) tests, and the Ocular Surface Disease Index. Intra- and postoperative complications were recorded. The solution used for CXL epi-off comprised riboflavin 0.1% and dextran 20.0% (Ricrolin), whereas the solution for CXL epi-on (Ricrolin TE) comprised riboflavin 0.1%, dextran 15.0%, trometamol (Tris), and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Ultraviolet-A treatment was performed with a UV-X system at 3 mW/cm(2). RESULTS: In both groups, a significant improvement in visual function (Group 1: baseline 0.36 ± 0.16 logMAR, two-year follow-up 0.22 ± 0.17 logMAR, p=0.01; Group 2: baseline 0.32 ± 0.18 logMAR, 2-year follow-up 0.27 ± 0.19 logMAR, p=0.01) was recorded. Keratometry remained unchanged in both groups. The mean corneal thickness showed a significant reduction (mean difference of corneal thickness: −55 micron and −71 micron, resp.). One-month after treatment, OSDI(©) reached 13.56 ± 2.15 in Group 1 (p=0.03) and 11.26 ± 2.12 in Group 2 (p=0.04). At confocal microscopy, abnormal corneal nerve alterations were found in both groups. Fibrotic reaction (43.75%) and activated keratocyte (62.6%) were more commonly recorded in Group 1 than in Group 2 (25.0% and 18.75%), with p=0.668 and 0.356, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that both procedures are able to slow keratoconus progression. Both treatment modalities are equivalent in terms of results and related complications. CXL epi-on technique is preferable to CXL epi-off since it preserves the corneal thickness and improves visual acuity, also reducing the postoperative ocular discomfort during the study period. Hindawi 2018-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6087595/ /pubmed/30151277 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/4947983 Text en Copyright © 2018 F. Cifariello et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study Cifariello, F. Minicucci, M. Di Renzo, F. Di Taranto, D. Coclite, G. Zaccaria, S. De Turris, S. Costagliola, C. Epi-Off versus Epi-On Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking in Keratoconus Patients: A Comparative Study through 2-Year Follow-Up |
title | Epi-Off versus Epi-On Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking in Keratoconus Patients: A Comparative Study through 2-Year Follow-Up |
title_full | Epi-Off versus Epi-On Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking in Keratoconus Patients: A Comparative Study through 2-Year Follow-Up |
title_fullStr | Epi-Off versus Epi-On Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking in Keratoconus Patients: A Comparative Study through 2-Year Follow-Up |
title_full_unstemmed | Epi-Off versus Epi-On Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking in Keratoconus Patients: A Comparative Study through 2-Year Follow-Up |
title_short | Epi-Off versus Epi-On Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking in Keratoconus Patients: A Comparative Study through 2-Year Follow-Up |
title_sort | epi-off versus epi-on corneal collagen cross-linking in keratoconus patients: a comparative study through 2-year follow-up |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6087595/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30151277 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/4947983 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cifariellof epioffversusepioncornealcollagencrosslinkinginkeratoconuspatientsacomparativestudythrough2yearfollowup AT minicuccim epioffversusepioncornealcollagencrosslinkinginkeratoconuspatientsacomparativestudythrough2yearfollowup AT direnzof epioffversusepioncornealcollagencrosslinkinginkeratoconuspatientsacomparativestudythrough2yearfollowup AT ditarantod epioffversusepioncornealcollagencrosslinkinginkeratoconuspatientsacomparativestudythrough2yearfollowup AT cocliteg epioffversusepioncornealcollagencrosslinkinginkeratoconuspatientsacomparativestudythrough2yearfollowup AT zaccarias epioffversusepioncornealcollagencrosslinkinginkeratoconuspatientsacomparativestudythrough2yearfollowup AT deturriss epioffversusepioncornealcollagencrosslinkinginkeratoconuspatientsacomparativestudythrough2yearfollowup AT costagliolac epioffversusepioncornealcollagencrosslinkinginkeratoconuspatientsacomparativestudythrough2yearfollowup |