Comparison of standard and accelerated corneal cross-linking for the treatment of keratoconus: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare results between standard and accelerated corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) for the treatment of progressive keratoconus.

METHODS

We performed literature searches in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EMBASE for studies comparing conventional Dresden (C-CXL) and accelerated CXL (A-CXL). Outcomes were clinical results and changes in corneal properties. Weighted mean differences were used to evaluate the effects.

RESULTS

Here, 22 studies with 1158 eyes (C-CXL: 577 eyes; A-CXL: 581 eyes) were included. At the last follow-up, C-CXL was superior regarding minimum keratometry (p < 0.00001) and demarcation line depth (p < 0.00001), whereas A-CXL should be favoured when considering minimum corneal thickness (p = 0.0005). No differences in uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (p = 0.09 and 0.98), spherical equivalent (p = 0.11), spherical and cylindrical error (p = 0.29 and 0.32), maximal and average keratometry (p = 0.05 and 0.65), central corneal thickness (p = 0.15), corneal biomechanical properties (p ≥ 0.21 respectively), time of reepithelialization (p = 0.76), subbasal nerve density (p = 0.69), endothelial cell density (p = 0.30) and morphology (p ≥ 0.40 respectively) were found among both groups.

CONCLUSION

Consideration of less corneal thinning favours A-CXL, whereas the deeper demarcation line and greater changes in minimum keratometric values in C-CXL may indicate a higher treatment efficacy. Altogether, C-CXL, as well as A-CXL, provides successful results in the strengthening of corneal tissue.