Sidi Mohamed Hamida Abdelkader1, Joaquín Fernández2, Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo2, Alicia Sánchez-García2,3, David P Piñero3,4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Torrecárdenas Hospital Complex, Almería, Spain. 2. Department of Ophthalmology (Qvision), Vithas Virgen Del Mar Hospital, Almería, Spain. 3. Department of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Vithas Medimar International Hospital, Alicante, Spain.
Abstract
Purpose: To review the scientific literature on the comparison of the efficacy of different corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) protocols for the treatment of progressive keratoconus. Methods: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on CXL outcomes. A search was carried out using the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, and Scopus databases. Internal validity was analyzed by applying the filter CASPe (Critical Appraisal Skills Program Spain). Results: The search yielded 1151 articles, and among these, 14 articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria defined. Conventional (S) crosslinking (CXL) provided better topographic outcomes than transepithelial (TE) CXL, and S-CXL had a better therapeutic effect of corneal flattening than accelerated (A) CXL. The corneal thinning after CXL was lower with hypotonic riboflavin than with riboflavin-dextran. While one study demonstrated a better therapeutic effect of corneal flattening with S-CXL than with A-CXL, another study showed similar results between both techniques. No correlation was found between the depth of the demarcation line and topographic changes, which was not a direct measure of treatment effectiveness. Quality analysis of the literature reviewed yielded a mean score of 8.64, indicating that the RCTs evaluated had an overall acceptable quality.Conclusions: Good-quality RCTs comparing CXL techniques have been conducted, and most of them suggest that epi-off CXL can be considered the standard treatment for progressive keratoconus. TE-CXL and iontophoresis-assisted CXL are mainly indicated in patients with a risk of corneal scarring and patients with pain intolerance, respectively.
Purpose: To review the scientific literature on the comparison of the efficacy of different corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) protocols for the treatment of progressive keratoconus. Methods: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on CXL outcomes. A search was carried out using the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, and Scopus databases. Internal validity was analyzed by applying the filter CASPe (Critical Appraisal Skills Program Spain). Results: The search yielded 1151 articles, and among these, 14 articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria defined. Conventional (S) crosslinking (CXL) provided better topographic outcomes than transepithelial (TE) CXL, and S-CXL had a better therapeutic effect of corneal flattening than accelerated (A) CXL. The corneal thinning after CXL was lower with hypotonic riboflavin than with riboflavin-dextran. While one study demonstrated a better therapeutic effect of corneal flattening with S-CXL than with A-CXL, another study showed similar results between both techniques. No correlation was found between the depth of the demarcation line and topographic changes, which was not a direct measure of treatment effectiveness. Quality analysis of the literature reviewed yielded a mean score of 8.64, indicating that the RCTs evaluated had an overall acceptable quality.Conclusions: Good-quality RCTs comparing CXL techniques have been conducted, and most of them suggest that epi-off CXL can be considered the standard treatment for progressive keratoconus. TE-CXL and iontophoresis-assisted CXL are mainly indicated in patients with a risk of corneal scarring and patients with pain intolerance, respectively.