AIM:To evaluate the differences in corneal biological parameters between transepithelial and epithelium-off corneal cross-linking in keratoconus.METHODS:In our prospective clinical trial,40 patients(60 eyes)with progr...AIM:To evaluate the differences in corneal biological parameters between transepithelial and epithelium-off corneal cross-linking in keratoconus.METHODS:In our prospective clinical trial,40 patients(60 eyes)with progressive keratoconus were randomized to undergo corneal cross-linking with transepithelial(TE group,n=30)or epithelium-off(EO group,n=30)keratoconus.Examinations comprised topography,corneal biomechanical analysis and specular microscopy at 6 mo postoperatively.RESULTS:The keratometer values were not significantly different between the TE and EO corneal cross-linked groups in different periods(each P>0.05).The corneal thickness of the EO group was greater than that of the TE group at 1 wk after the operation(each P<0.05).Regarding corneal biomechanical responses,the EO group showed a longer second applanation length than TE group(P=0.003).Regarding the corneal endothelial function,standard deviation of the endothelial cell size,and coefficient of variation in the cell area,the values of EO group were larger than those of TE group at 1 wk(P=0.011,0.026),and the percentage of hexagonal cells in EO group was lower than that in TE group at 1 and 6 mo(P=0.018,0.019).CONCLUSION:Epithelium-off corneal cross-linking may strengthen corneal biomechanics better than TE procedure can.However,the TE procedure with a lower ultraviolet-A irradiation intensity would be safer for corneal endothelial function.展开更多
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 random...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.展开更多
Background:The purpose of the study was to determine the advantages and disadvantages of epi-on corneal crosslinking(CXL)techniques compared with standard epi-off CXL.Methods:We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomi...Background:The purpose of the study was to determine the advantages and disadvantages of epi-on corneal crosslinking(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.展开更多
基金Supported by the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China(No.81870681)the Fundamental Research Funds of the State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology。
文摘AIM:To evaluate the differences in corneal biological parameters between transepithelial and epithelium-off corneal cross-linking in keratoconus.METHODS:In our prospective clinical trial,40 patients(60 eyes)with progressive keratoconus were randomized to undergo corneal cross-linking with transepithelial(TE group,n=30)or epithelium-off(EO group,n=30)keratoconus.Examinations comprised topography,corneal biomechanical analysis and specular microscopy at 6 mo postoperatively.RESULTS:The keratometer values were not significantly different between the TE and EO corneal cross-linked groups in different periods(each P>0.05).The corneal thickness of the EO group was greater than that of the TE group at 1 wk after the operation(each P<0.05).Regarding corneal biomechanical responses,the EO group showed a longer second applanation length than TE group(P=0.003).Regarding the corneal endothelial function,standard deviation of the endothelial cell size,and coefficient of variation in the cell area,the values of EO group were larger than those of TE group at 1 wk(P=0.011,0.026),and the percentage of hexagonal cells in EO group was lower than that in TE group at 1 and 6 mo(P=0.018,0.019).CONCLUSION:Epithelium-off corneal cross-linking may strengthen corneal biomechanics better than TE procedure can.However,the TE procedure with a lower ultraviolet-A irradiation intensity would be safer for corneal endothelial function.
基金This study has been financed in part by the Network for Cooperative Research in Health“OFTARED”—Reference:RD16/0008/0012.Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III and co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund(ERDF),Project“A way to make Europe”.
文摘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.
基金financed in part by the Network for Cooperative Research in Health“OFTARED”—Reference:RD16/0008/0012Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos IIIco-funded by the European Regional Development Fund(ERDF),Project"A way to make Europe".
文摘Background:The purpose of the study was to determine the advantages and disadvantages of epi-on corneal crosslinking(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.
