Conventional and Transepithelial Corneal Cross-Linking for Patients with Keratoconus.
Xiaoyu Zhang,Jing Zhao,Meiyan Li,Mi Tian,Yang Shen,Xingtao Zhou
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195105
IF: 3.7
2018-01-01
PLoS ONE
Abstract:Previous studies investigating the effectiveness of conventional corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) and transepithelial CXL in keratoconus treatment have reported conflicting outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of these treatments. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with no restrictions. We included visual acuity (corrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected distance visual acuity) and corneal keratometry (K) as primary outcome parameters, and spherical equivalent, central corneal thickness (CCT), and endothelial cell density, as secondary parameters. We finally included seven reports (including six RCTs involving 305 participants and 344 eyes). Our analysis revealed significant postoperative differences in average K and CCT values between conventional and transepithelial CXL-treated patients [K: weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.04-1.53, p = 0.04; CCT: WMD = 4.53, 95% CI = 0.42-8.64, p = 0.03]. In contrast, we did not find any significant differences in visual acuity, flattest K value, steepest K value, cylinder K value, apex K value, spherical equivalent, or endothelial cell density between groups. In conclusion, transepithelial CXL has a more protective influence on corneal thickness than conventional CXL, and results in lesser postoperative corneal flattening. Further investigation of the clinical outcomes of transepithelial CXL is required.