PURPOSE: There has been a recent explosion in the variety of techniques used to accomplish corneal cross-linking (CXL) for the treatment of ectatic corneal diseases. To understand the success or failure of various techniques, we review the physicochemical basis of corneal CXL and re-evaluate the current principles and long-standing conventional wisdom in the light of recent, compelling, and sometimes contradictory research. METHODS: Two clinicians and a medicinal chemist developed a list of current key topics, controversies, and questions in the field of corneal CXL based on information from current literature, medical conferences, and discussions with international practitioners of CXL. RESULTS: Standard corneal CXL with removal of the corneal epithelium is a safe and efficacious procedure for the treatment of corneal ectasias. However, the necessity of epithelium removal is painful for patients, involves risk and requires significant recovery time. Attempts to move to transepithelial corneal CXL have been hindered by the lack of a coherent understanding of the physicochemistry of corneal CXL. Misconceptions about the applicability of the Bunsen-Roscoe law of reciprocity and the Lambert-Beer law in CXL hamper the ability to predict the effect of ultraviolet A energy during CXL. Improved understanding of CXL may also expand the treatment group for corneal ectasia to those with thinner corneas. Finally, it is essential to understand the role of oxygen in successful CXL. CONCLUSIONS: Improved understanding of the complex interactions of riboflavin, ultraviolet A energy and oxygen in corneal CXL may provide a successful route to transepithelial corneal CXL.

Corneal Cross-Linking: The Science Beyond the Myths and Misconceptions

Ostacolo, Carmine
Ultimo
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
2019

Abstract

PURPOSE: There has been a recent explosion in the variety of techniques used to accomplish corneal cross-linking (CXL) for the treatment of ectatic corneal diseases. To understand the success or failure of various techniques, we review the physicochemical basis of corneal CXL and re-evaluate the current principles and long-standing conventional wisdom in the light of recent, compelling, and sometimes contradictory research. METHODS: Two clinicians and a medicinal chemist developed a list of current key topics, controversies, and questions in the field of corneal CXL based on information from current literature, medical conferences, and discussions with international practitioners of CXL. RESULTS: Standard corneal CXL with removal of the corneal epithelium is a safe and efficacious procedure for the treatment of corneal ectasias. However, the necessity of epithelium removal is painful for patients, involves risk and requires significant recovery time. Attempts to move to transepithelial corneal CXL have been hindered by the lack of a coherent understanding of the physicochemistry of corneal CXL. Misconceptions about the applicability of the Bunsen-Roscoe law of reciprocity and the Lambert-Beer law in CXL hamper the ability to predict the effect of ultraviolet A energy during CXL. Improved understanding of CXL may also expand the treatment group for corneal ectasia to those with thinner corneas. Finally, it is essential to understand the role of oxygen in successful CXL. CONCLUSIONS: Improved understanding of the complex interactions of riboflavin, ultraviolet A energy and oxygen in corneal CXL may provide a successful route to transepithelial corneal CXL.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Corneal_Cross_Linking__The_Science_Beyond_the.96573.pdf

non disponibili

Descrizione: Early on line version
Tipologia: Documento in Pre-print
Licenza: Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 547.97 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
547.97 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/748599
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 25
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 26
social impact