Cargando…
Corneal collagen cross-linking epithelium-on vs. epithelium-off: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to determine the advantages and disadvantages of epi-on corneal cross-linking (CXL) techniques compared with standard epi-off CXL. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRS...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8465763/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34565473 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40662-021-00256-0 |
_version_ | 1784572959693733888 |
---|---|
author | D’Oria, Francesco Palazón, Antonio Alio, Jorge L. |
author_facet | D’Oria, Francesco Palazón, Antonio Alio, Jorge L. |
author_sort | D’Oria, Francesco |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to determine the advantages and disadvantages of epi-on corneal cross-linking (CXL) techniques compared with standard epi-off CXL. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) and we evaluated the selected papers according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We considered, as primary outcomes, average Kmax flattening, changes in uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA); as secondary outcomes, we considered changes in pachymetry values and endothelial cell density (ECD). We also investigated adverse events related to the treatments and treatment failure. Meta-analysis was conducted with a fixed or random-effects model using weighted mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as the effect size. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were included and among these 15 trials, 9 were RCTs and 6 were NRSIs, but only 4 studies showed no high risk of bias and were included in this meta-analysis. Our analysis revealed significant postoperative differences in CDVA (MD = 0.07; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10; P < 0.001), and no significative differences in UDVA, Kmax, central corneal thickness (CCT) and ECD (P > 0.05). Epi-on CXL protocol was found to be significantly less prompt to have risks of delay in epithelial healing (P = 0.035) and persistent stromal haze (P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Epi-on CXL is as effective as epi-off CXL. Except for a higher significant improvement in CDVA with current epi-on protocols, our meta-analysis demonstrates that epi-on and epi-off CXL have comparable effects on visual, topographic, pachymetric, and endothelial parameters. Epi-on CXL has clinical advantages in terms of comfort and avoidance of complications as it reduces the risk of developing delay in epithelial healing and persistent stromal haze. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40662-021-00256-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8465763 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84657632021-09-27 Corneal collagen cross-linking epithelium-on vs. epithelium-off: a systematic review and meta-analysis D’Oria, Francesco Palazón, Antonio Alio, Jorge L. Eye Vis (Lond) Review BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to determine the advantages and disadvantages of epi-on corneal cross-linking (CXL) techniques compared with standard epi-off CXL. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) and we evaluated the selected papers according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We considered, as primary outcomes, average Kmax flattening, changes in uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA); as secondary outcomes, we considered changes in pachymetry values and endothelial cell density (ECD). We also investigated adverse events related to the treatments and treatment failure. Meta-analysis was conducted with a fixed or random-effects model using weighted mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as the effect size. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were included and among these 15 trials, 9 were RCTs and 6 were NRSIs, but only 4 studies showed no high risk of bias and were included in this meta-analysis. Our analysis revealed significant postoperative differences in CDVA (MD = 0.07; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10; P < 0.001), and no significative differences in UDVA, Kmax, central corneal thickness (CCT) and ECD (P > 0.05). Epi-on CXL protocol was found to be significantly less prompt to have risks of delay in epithelial healing (P = 0.035) and persistent stromal haze (P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Epi-on CXL is as effective as epi-off CXL. Except for a higher significant improvement in CDVA with current epi-on protocols, our meta-analysis demonstrates that epi-on and epi-off CXL have comparable effects on visual, topographic, pachymetric, and endothelial parameters. Epi-on CXL has clinical advantages in terms of comfort and avoidance of complications as it reduces the risk of developing delay in epithelial healing and persistent stromal haze. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40662-021-00256-0. BioMed Central 2021-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8465763/ /pubmed/34565473 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40662-021-00256-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review D’Oria, Francesco Palazón, Antonio Alio, Jorge L. Corneal collagen cross-linking epithelium-on vs. epithelium-off: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Corneal collagen cross-linking epithelium-on vs. epithelium-off: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Corneal collagen cross-linking epithelium-on vs. epithelium-off: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Corneal collagen cross-linking epithelium-on vs. epithelium-off: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Corneal collagen cross-linking epithelium-on vs. epithelium-off: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Corneal collagen cross-linking epithelium-on vs. epithelium-off: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | corneal collagen cross-linking epithelium-on vs. epithelium-off: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8465763/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34565473 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40662-021-00256-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT doriafrancesco cornealcollagencrosslinkingepitheliumonvsepitheliumoffasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT palazonantonio cornealcollagencrosslinkingepitheliumonvsepitheliumoffasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT aliojorgel cornealcollagencrosslinkingepitheliumonvsepitheliumoffasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |