Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the 5-year efficacy and safety of accelerated transepithelial (A-epi-on) corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) with standard CXL (epi-off) in children with progressive keratoconus (KC).
Methods:
This prospective cohort study included 78 eyes of patients aged 18 years old or younger with progressive KC who underwent CXL at the Oftalmosalud Institute of Eyes, Lima, Peru. A-epi-on CXL was performed in 32 eyes (30′ of impregnation/5′ of irradiation at 18 mW/cm2) and epi-off CXL was performed in 46 eyes (30′of impregnation/30′ minutes of irradiation at 3 mW/cm2). Visual acuity, refraction, and the Scheimpflug imaging parameters were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 and 5 years.
Results:
The best corrected visual acuity improved to 0.06 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (SD: 0.19, P = 0.03) and 0.09 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (SD: 0.13, P < 0.001) in the A-epi-on and epi-off groups, respectively. The mean flattening in the mean keratometry was 0.09 diopters (D) (SD: 0.68, P = 0.33) and 3.18 D (SD: 5.17, P < 0.001) in the A-epi-on CXL and Epi-off groups at the 5-year follow-up. Significant differences were found in the change at 1 and 5 years between the groups for cylinder reduction, flat and mean K, and pachymetry (all P < 0.05). The KC progression rate was 9.37% (3/32) in the A-epi-on CXL; no progression was found in the epi-off CXL group at the 5-year follow-up.
Conclusions:
Both procedures halted the progression of KC at the 5-year follow-up; however, epi-off CXL was safer and more effective when compared with A-epi-on CXL.
We evaluate the long-term visual, refractive, and keratometric outcomes after corneal crosslinking (CXL) in patients with progressive keratoconus (KC) and the incidence of an extreme corneal flattening effect.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.