Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

Keratoconus: A Treatable Disease

Written By

Gustavo E. Tamayo, Eduardo J. Polania-Baron, Claudia Castell, Pilar Vargas and Juliana Tamayo

Submitted: August 30th, 2021 Reviewed: October 13th, 2021 Published: May 10th, 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.101206

IntechOpen
Vision Correction and Eye Surgery Edited by Giuseppe Lo Giudice

From the Edited Volume

Vision Correction and Eye Surgery [Working Title]

M.D. Giuseppe Lo Giudice

Chapter metrics overview

5 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Keratoconus is a very frequent disease and is no diagnosed in many cases. Our chapter will focus on the several diagnostic tools not to miss this disease and also will present a all the treatment options with special focus on Corneal Cross Linking. All the indications for this treatment will be analyzed and extensively discussed as it should be considered the only option to stop the progress of the cone. Also, statistical analysis from our clinic with more than 2000 treatments with Cross Linking and follow up since 2006 will be presented. Literature review with results of this treatment is also going to be presented. Finally, a case of keratoconus treated with PRK and follow up of 30 years will be discussed and analyzed as the introduction of the combination of Cross Linking and Wavefront as one very good option in cases of mild to moderate keratoconus.

Keywords

  • ectasia
  • crosslinking
  • eye rubbing

1. Introduction

Keratoconus is a disease of the cornea characterized by focal thinning and protrusion, with clinical manifestation of astigmatism, either regular when the disease is not well developed, or irregular astigmatism in severe cases. The condition is usually bilateral, although almost always asymmetrical. Due to its lack of neovascularization and cellular infiltration, it is defined as a non-inflammatory disorder [1]. However, association between atopy, ocular allergic disease, eye rubbing, high levels of serum immunoglobulin E, enzymatic alterations [2, 3, 4], alterations in interleukin (IL)-1 receptors density [5, 6], and keratoconus exists [7, 8, 9, 10]. Nonetheless, it is important to say that in a case-control study a multivariate analysis found that only eye rubbing was still a significant predictor of keratoconus [11]. More recent studies have proved that there is a significant action of inflammatory mediators and a possible effect of oxidative stress, thus questioning the non-inflammatory status of the disease [12, 13, 14, 15].

Eye rubbing is certainly a very important factor in the production of keratoconus as demonstrated in the frequency of this disease in populations such as patients with Down Syndrome [16]. It is also commonly associated with allergic diseases of the eye, and it has also been associated with a rub of the cornea against the pillow when sleeping. In any case, keratoconus appears early in life (preadolescence), and usually progresses until 25–30 years of age. Of course, there are some reports of cases in an older age, as well as keratoconus in infants [17, 18].

Advertisement

2. Epidemiology

Keratoconus epidemiology varies in every country and even in different populations within the same country. There are report of 6/1000 and up to 50–230 per 100,000 [19]. Other studies in Asia show a prevalence ranging from 0.3 per 100,000 people to 25% prevalence [20, 21]. A recent review in the Netherlands published in the year 2017, shows an annual incidence of keratoconus of 1:7500 in people between 10 and 40 years-old (13.3 cases per 100,000, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.6–15.2) with a prevalence of 1:375 (265 cases per 100,000, 95% CI: 260–270) [22].

Advertisement

3. Treatment of keratoconus: history

Traditionally, only two options were available for the treatment of keratoconus. From a medical point of view, hard contact lenses gained popularity as a method in stopping the progression of the disease. The only surgical option to correct this condition in patients with intolerance to contact lenses was penetrating corneal transplant, a high-risk procedure for such a young patient. In 1991, intrastromal corneal rings were introduced as a way to correct myopia [23, 24]. Later on, they began being used for treatment of keratoconus and corneal ectasias, and today, they are the only indication for ICRS [25, 26].

In 1997 [27], one of us (GT), started to treat mild to moderate keratoconus with PRK under the theory that the scar tissue formed in the intersection of the Bowman’s membrane and the stroma would stop the progression of the disease. This concept was criticized by many but also accepted by others. Studies presented in several meetings by GT, analyzing their own cases, showed that after 12 years of follow up, 50 eyes treated with PRK alone without Cross Linking (not available by that time), 4 eyes did not improve and required Corneal Transplant, accounting for 8% of the cases. That is considered an excellent result, since reports of untreated keratoconus vary from 10% to even 60% of corneal transplant [28, 29].

We also present the history in 1999 of a 22-year-old male who was sent to our clinic looking for a corneal transplant. Considering the theory of the scar tissue after excimer laser, we decided to perform a PRK instead and today, after more than 25 years of follow up, is still stable and with an excellent visual acuity. In his last visit, he had a refraction in his right eye of +0.75–2.25 × 15 and a BCVA of 20/20 and in his left of +0.75–2.00 × 150 and a BCVA of 20/20. Topography stability could be seen in Figure 1. With this patient, along with the success in selected cases of keratoconus treated with PRK, there is the idea of considering this as a treatable disease.

Figure 1.

Corneal topography follow-up (year 2011–2017) of one of our oldest patients who is 36 years old, he had PRK surgery at age 22 instead of a corneal transplant. Corneal topography shows keratometric and pachymetry stability in the right eye (upper maps) and in the left eye (lower maps).

22 years ago (year 1999) Corneal Crosslinking was introduced as an option to halt keratoconus progression, and it was first described by Spoerl et al., using 254 nm ultraviolet light and riboflavin in dextran [30]. Vitamin B2 is important to control UV-light penetration in the cornea and to avoid endothelial and inner eye damages. Details regarding osmolarity are crucial because corneal thinning or corneal swelling can be achieved by using hyperosmolar or hypo-osmolar riboflavin, respectively [31, 32]. And studies reveal that the stronger effect of UV-light absorption, and in consequence crosslinking effect, occurs in the anterior stroma (anterior 252 μm) [33, 34, 35, 36] where keratocyte apoptosis and repopulation (after 6 months of CXL) is more evident [37, 38]. Other studies have shown an increase in type I collagen fibers diameters after corneal crosslinking, and this effect causes not only intrafibrillar but also interfibrillar crosslinking and these changes could be seen in a greater way at the anterior stroma [37, 39].

Eighteen years ago the first clinical study of corneal crosslinking was performed by Wollensak et al. [40]. There is significant evidence in the literature to support the use of corneal crosslinking to halt its progression, and in a few cases, a second treatment may be required [41, 42, 43, 44, 45].

The development of Cross Linking revitalized our idea to treat keratoconus and gave those patients the freedom of hard contact lenses, the only option before a corneal transplant for these patients. Cross Linking appeared as the only minimally invasive procedure able to stop the progression of this disease, and is considered the gold standard to halt the progression of keratoconus [46, 47]. According to the Global Consensus of Keratoconus and Ectatic Diseases published in 2015, currently 83.3% of ophthalmic physicians are performing CXL as a treatment modality for keratoconus and all the physicians who do not currently have access to this technique are willing to use this procedure once it becomes available [48].

It has been proven that crosslinking not only halts progression but improves topographic, refractive, and visual acuity parameters [49, 50, 51, 52, 53] (UCDVA, BCVA). Although it is important to say that there are some case reports of loss of UCDVA and BCDVA lines after crosslinking [54, 55].

The pediatric population is the center of any health specialty. In our field, it is important to detect keratoconus in these patients, mainly to prevent a corneal transplant in the future. It is also important to prevent eye rubbing, and if there is any detection of topographic progression, to perform a corneal crosslinking without hesitation. Many clinical studies support the use of crosslinking in this special population, where topographic corneal parameters show stability or even improvement [56, 57, 58, 59]. Some studies illustrate adverse effects such as worsening of topographic or pachymetry changes in the same group [60, 61]. However, the general consensus is that there is a beneficial effect in young patients with a progressive keratoconus [62], and it has been advocated that those changes are due to the natural history of the disease rather than effect of the Cross Linking itself.

There are also several studies showing the advantage of combining KXL with other refractive procedures, such as intrastromal rings, or intraocular lenses, or Excimer Laser in PRK, or surface ablation form. These combinations not only halt the progression of the keratoconus but also help with vision, decreasing the refractive defect.

In our practice, we reviewed 50 cases of patients under 16 years of age with more than 5 years of follow up and found only one patient (2%) in whom the keratoconus progressed and needed a second successful application of accelerated Cross Linking a year later. These were patients with KXL as the only treatment without any combination. One example of a 6 years old girl with 9 years follow up is presented here. It is important to mention that the girl was the daughter of a woman with corneal transplants for keratoconus and the granddaughter of a woman with two corneal transplants as well. The progression of the keratoconus was documented from the age of 5–6. No repetition of the Cross Linking has been needed. Pictures of this pediatric patient are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Corneal topography follow-up (year 2010–2019) of a pediatric 7 year old patient that had topography progression of the keratoconus. After corneal crosslinking Corneal topography shows keratometric and pachymetry stability in the right eye (upper maps) and in the left eye (lower maps).

We have advocated the possibility to combine Cross Linking with Intrastromal Rings. In fact, today we consider a protocol to place rings and combine them with Cross Linking, and we strongly suggest to never implant rings without this combination, since this assures a halt in the progression of the cone. At the same time, it enhances the effect of the rings. In our clinic, we reviewed 84 eyes treated with Intrastromal rings implanted with Phemtosecond technique and combined with KXL in the same surgery, from 2011 to 2013, and that returned for controls 6–8 years later. All eyes improved their UCVA visual acuity and keratometric reading diminished from a mean of 54.3–51.6. No lines of BCVA were lost and 14 eyes gained two lines of vision (16.6%). 23 eyes gained one line (27.3%). No more Cross Linking was needed and some of those eyes returned successfully to wear contact lenses. Furthermore, when 17 eyes (20.2%) in these patients reached 20 years of age, and the complete stability of the defect was proved for more than 2 years and OCT showed enough stroma over the ring, a LASEK treatment was performed to further improve UCVA. From these, 13 eyes (76.4%) got complete independence to refractive correction.

The combination of PRK (photorefractive keratectomy) refractive treatment with the addition of Cross Linking has been the subject of many articles in the world literature [63, 64]. Although we have been working on PRK treatment of mild to moderate keratoconus since 1996, after 2006 we started combining them with Cross Linking. A very important paper from John Kanelopoulus [65], brought the term Athens Protocol to ophthalmology, that popularized this type of combined treatment soon after. Two papers have been published with our own results [66, 67].

We were able to retrieve 62 patients (95 eyes) with more than 10 years follow up from our practice. All eyes were treated for Lasik Ectasia (15 eyes) or keratoconus (77 eyes). The mean age was 25 (18–36 years). Our protocol for treatment is clearly stated in the papers in Dove Medical Press. The mean time for follow up was 10.3 years (from 9.7 to 12.4 years).

At the last visit results were as follows:

  1. 55 eyes did not use any refractive correction at all (58%). 18 eyes (19%) used glasses occasionally. 22 eyes used correction permanently. Not a single patient returned to the use of hard contact lenses and four patients wore soft contact lenses for sport.

  2. Not one eye lost lines of BCVA. 21 eyes (22%) gained two or more lines of BCVA. 42 eyes gained one line of BCVA (44%), and the other 32 eyes maintained the same BCVA. All eyes improved UCVA.

  3. No major complications were encountered. There was a delayed epithelization in 12 eyes that required longer use of the bandage contact lens. Haze was present in four eyes but cleared with time. One patient took over six months to complete the regression of the haze.

  4. Most importantly, in the 10 years follow-up, only one eye required new application of Cross Linking three years after the first application due to increase of two diopters in the Kmax of the Pentacam. Patient admitted that eye rubbing was the cause, and it turned out to be the right eye of a right-handed patient. The other 98 eyes have been stable for this period!!

Advertisement

4. Conclusions

With this chapter we have demonstrated several facts about keratoconus, that we can summarize as follows:

  1. Corneal Cross Linking is an extremely safe and effective procedure to stop the progression of this disease.

  2. Cross Linking can be applied to children as well, and it is very effective in such cases.

  3. Corneal transplants have decreased dramatically for many corneal surgeons since today it is possible to stop a progressive keratoconus and avoid the risk involved in with this surgery, particularly in patients under 20 years of age.

  4. To improve vision in selected cases, combination of Cross Linking with refractive methods, such as Surface Excimer Laser or Intrastromal Rings or even Intraocular Lenses, have proved to be very successful.

  5. The volume of literature with positive results and long follow up, as well as our own experience, do not support those doctors that do not consider Cross Linking as an option in cases of advancing keratoconus. Loss of 20/20 vision is an unforgettable mistake.

With this in mind, we make the following very strong statements as conclusions:

Keratoconus is no longer a disease without treatment. Corneal transplant is no longer the only surgical option to correct keratoconus. The advent of Cross Linking a little more than 20 years ago, has not been a very well recognized advancement of the twenty-first century to Ophthalmology. Theo Seiler and his group gave one of the best gifts to the world, the option to make a person independent to the use of rigid contact lenses to see. It is our opinion, and one shared by many authors, that the time has come to free those patients of the contact lenses, and if complete freedom is not possible, at the very least improve their quality of life, allowing independence and use of better tolerated soft contact lenses or even glasses.

At the same time, we cannot tolerate young patients losing their 20/20 corrected visual acuity anymore. Patients have the right to receive Corneal Cross Linking to stop the advancement of the disease and improve their visual acuity at a later time.

The inherited regular astigmatism does not change after 10 years of age. We strongly encourage any ophthalmologist/optometrist involved in eye care to pay attention to children with an increased astigmatism over the years, and make sure they are not encountering a case of keratoconus. Today, several authors recommend the use of Cross Linking in any newly diagnosed case of keratoconus, regardless of the age and even without showing signs of progression. Even if this seems to be too radical, it is important to at least be aware of the possibility of keratoconus and check the patient often with all the tests available today, and treat them if the possibility of losing the 20/20 correction comes to mind. The scientific literature does not cover the mistake of avoiding the use of this method to stop the progression of the keratoconus. Of course, preventing eye rubbing is also an important tool to help prevent the progression of the cone.

Furthermore, in the indicated cases, combination of Cross Linking with Wave Front or Topography guided Excimer Laser treatment, intrastromal rings or Intraocular lenses, have also been demonstrated to be safe and effective in improving quality of life of those patients.

Keep in mind: Keratoconus is a treatable disease.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. Krachmer JH, Feder RS, Belin MW. Keratoconus and related noninflammatory corneal thinning disorders. Survey of Ophthalmology. 1984;28:293-322
  2. 2. Fukuchi T, Yue B, Sugar J, Lam S. Lysosomal enzyme activities in conjunctival tissues of patients with keratoconus. Archives of Ophthalmology. 1994;112:1368-1374
  3. 3. Sawaguchi S, Yue B, Sugar J, Gilboy J. Lysosomal enzyme abnormalities in keratoconus. Archives of Ophthalmology. 1989;107:1507-1510
  4. 4. Zhou L et al. Expression of degradative enzymes and protease inhibitors in corneas with keratoconus. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 1998;39:1117-1124
  5. 5. Bureau J, Fabre E, Hecquet C, Pouliquen Y, Lorans G. Modification of prostiglandin E2 and collagen synthesis in keratoconus fibroblasts associated with an increase of interleukin 1 alpha receptor number. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences III. 1993;316:425-430
  6. 6. Fabre E, Bureau J, Pouliquen Y, Lorans G. Binding sites for human interleukin 1 alpha, gamma interferon and tumor necrosis factor on cultured fibroblasts of normal cornea and keratoconus. Current Eye Research. 1991;10:585-592
  7. 7. Kok Y, Tan G, Loon S. Review: Keratoconus in Asia. Cornea. 2012;31:581-593
  8. 8. Millodot M, Shneor E, Albou S, Atlani E, Gordon-Shaag A. Prevalence and associated factors of keratoconus in Jerusalem: A cross-sectional study. Ophthalmic Epidemiology. 2011;18:91-97
  9. 9. Kemp E, Lewis C. Measurement of total and specific IgE levels in the management of a family exhibiting a high incidence of keratoconus. Acta Ophthalmologica. 1984;62:524-529
  10. 10. Kemp E, Lewis C. Immunoglobulin patterns in keratoconus with particular reference to total and specific IgE levels. The British Journal of Ophthalmology. 1982;66:717-720
  11. 11. Bawazeer A, Hodge W, Lorimer B. Atopy and keratoconus: A multivariate analysis. The British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2000;84:834-836
  12. 12. Balasubramanian S, Mohan S, Pye D, Willcox M. Proteases, proteolysis and inflammatory molecules in the tears of people with keratoconus. Acta Ophthalmologica. 2012;90:e303-e309
  13. 13. Lema I, Durán J. Inflammatory molecules in the tears of patients with keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:654-659
  14. 14. Mackiewicz Z et al. Collagenolytic proteinases in keratoconus. Cornea. 2006;25:603-610
  15. 15. McMonnies C. Inflammation and keratoconus. Optometry and Vision Science. 2015;92:35-41
  16. 16. Najmi H, Mobarki Y, Mania K. The correlation between keratoconus and eye rubbing: A review. International Journal of Ophthalmology. 2019;12:1775-1781
  17. 17. Barbara A. Textbook on Keratoconus New Insights. New Dheli: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; 2012
  18. 18. Kennedy RH, Bourne WM, Dyer JA. A 48-year clinical and epidemiologic study of keratoconus. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 1986;101:267-273
  19. 19. Gokhale NS. Epidemiology of keratoconus. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2013;61:382-383
  20. 20. Gorskova E, Sevostianov E. Epidemiology of keratoconus in the Urals. Vestnik Oftalmologii. 1998;114:38-40
  21. 21. Jonas J, Nangia V, Matin A, Kulkarni M, Bhojwani K. Prevalence and associations of keratoconus in rural Maharashtra in central India: The central India Eye Medical Study. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2009;148:760-765
  22. 22. Godefrooij D, de Wit G, Uiterwaal C, Imhof S, Wisse R. Age-specific Incidence and Prevalence of Keratoconus: A Nationwide Registration Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Mar;175:169-172. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2017;175:169-172
  23. 23. Schanzlin D, Asbell P, Burris T, Durrie D. The intrastromal corneal ring segments. Phase II results for the correction of myopia. Ophthalmology. 1997. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:1067-1078
  24. 24. Krueger R, Burris T. Intrastromal corneal ring technology. International Ophthalmology Clinics. 1996;36:89-106
  25. 25. Fahd D, Alameddine R, Nasser M, Awwad S. Refractive and topographic effects of single-segment intrastromal corneal ring segments in eyes with moderate to severe keratoconus and inferior cones. J. Cart. Refract. Surg. 2015;41:1434-1440
  26. 26. Hashemian M et al. Outcomes of Single Segment Implantation of Conventional Intacs versus Intacs SK for Keratoconus. J. Ophthalmic Vis. Res. 2014;9:305-309
  27. 27. Tamayo G, Serrano M. A new approach for the treatment of irregular astigmatism. In: Poster presented at the Pan-American Congress; Cancun, Mexico. 1997
  28. 28. Tamayo Fernandez G, Serrano M. Early clinical experience using custom excimer laser ablations to treat irregular astigmatism. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2000;26:1442-1950
  29. 29. Tamayo G, Serrano M. Topography assisted excimer laser ablation with the VISX CAP method. In: Thorofare. NJ: SLACK Inc; 2001. pp. 281-289
  30. 30. Spoerl E, Huhle M, Seiler T. Induction of cross-links in corneal tissue. Experimental Eye Research. 1998;66:97-103
  31. 31. Kling S, Remon L, Pérez-Escudero A, Merayo-Lloves J, Marcos S. Corneal biomechanical changes after collagen crosslinking from porcine eye inflation experiments. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2010;51:3961-3968
  32. 32. Hafezi F, Mrochen M, Iseli H, Seiler T. Collagen crosslinking with ultraviolet-A and hypoosmolar riboflavin solution in thin corneas. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2009;35:621-624
  33. 33. Wollensak G, Iomdina E, Dittert DD, Herbst H. Wound healing in the rabbit cornea after corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and UVA. Cornea. Jun 2007;26(5):600-605
  34. 34. Beshtawi IM et al. Biomechanical changes of collagen cross-linking on human keratoconic corneas using Scanning Acoustic Microscopy. Current Eye Research. 2016;41:609-615
  35. 35. Kohlhaas M et al. Biomechanical evidence of the distribution of cross-links in corneastreated with riboflavin and ultraviolet A light. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2006;32:279-283
  36. 36. Scarcelli G et al. Brillouin microscopy of collagen crosslinking: Noncontact depth-dependent analysis of corneal elastic modulus. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2013;54:1418-1425
  37. 37. Mencucci R et al. Effects of riboflavin/UVA corneal cross-linking on keratocytes and collagen fibres in human cornea. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology. 2010;38:49-56
  38. 38. Dhaliwal JS, Kaufman SC. Corneal collagen cross-linking: a confocal, electron, and light microscopy study of eye bank corneas. Cornea. Jan 2009;28(1):62-67
  39. 39. Wollensak G, Wilsch M, Spoerl E, Seiler T. Collagen fiber diameter in the rabbit cornea after collagen crosslinking by riboflavin/UVA. Cornea. 2004;23:503-507
  40. 40. Wollensak G, Spoerl E, Seiler T. Riboflavin/ultraviolet-A induced collagen crosslinking for the treatment of keratoconus. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2003;135:620-627
  41. 41. Tiveron MJ et al. Topographic outcomes after corneal collagen crosslinking in progressive keratoconus: 1-year follow-up. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia. 2017;80:93-96
  42. 42. Giacomin N et al. Corneal collagen cross-linking in advanced keratoconus: A 4-year follow-up study. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2016;32:459-465
  43. 43. Poli M, Lefevre A, Auxenfans C, Burillon C. Corneal collagen cross-linking for the treatment of progressive corneal ectasia: 6-year prospective outcome in a French population. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2015;160:654-662.e1
  44. 44. Rechichi M, Daya S, Scorcia V, Meduri A, Scorcia G. Epithelial-disruption collagen crosslinking for keratoconus: one-year results. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. Aug 2013;39(8):1171-1178
  45. 45. Raiskup-Wolf F, Hoyer A, Spoerl E, Pillunat LE. Article: Collagen crosslinking with riboflavin and ultraviolet-A light in keratoconus: Long-term results. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2008;34:796-801
  46. 46. Jouve L et al. Conventional and iontophoresis corneal cross-linking for keratoconus. Cornea. 2017;36:153-162
  47. 47. Labate C, De Santo M, Lombardo G, Lombardo M. Understanding of the viscoelastic response of the human corneal stroma induced by riboflavin/UV-A cross-linking at the nano level. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0122868
  48. 48. Gomes P et al. Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea. 2015;34:359-369
  49. 49. Brart DPS, Kwong TQ, Patel P, McDonald RJ, O’Brart NA. Long-term follow-up of riboflavin/ultraviolet A (370 nm) corneal collagen cross-linking to halt the progression of keratoconus. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2013;97:433-437
  50. 50. Brart DPS, Chan E, Samaras K, Patel P, Shah SP. A randomised, prospective study to investigate the efficacy of riboflavin/ultraviolet A (370 nm) corneal collagen cross-linkage to halt the progression of keratoconus. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2011;95:1519-1524
  51. 51. Braun E, Kanellopoulos J, Pe L, Jankov M. Riboflavin/ultraviolet A-induced collagen cross-linking in the management of keratoconus. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2005;46:4964-4964
  52. 52. De Bernardo M et al. Long-term results of corneal collagen crosslinking for progressive keratoconus. Journal of Optometry. 2015;8:180-186
  53. 53. Caporossi A, Mazzotta C, Baiocchi S, Caporossi T. Long-term results of riboflavin ultraviolet A corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus in Italy: The Siena eye cross study. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2010;149:585-593
  54. 54. Hashemi H, Seyedian MA, Miraftab M, Fotouhi A, Asgari S. Corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and ultraviolet A irradiation for keratoconus: Long-term results. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1515-1520
  55. 55. Khan WA, Zaheer N, Khan S. Corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus: Results of 3-year follow-up in Pakistani population. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2015;50:143-150
  56. 56. Ibrahim T, Volkan Y, Cem Y. Visual, topographic, and pachymetric effects of pediatric corneal collagen cross-linking. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2017;54:84-89
  57. 57. Parissi M et al. Corneal nerve regeneration after collagen cross-linking treatment of keratoconus: A 5-year longitudinal study. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2016;134:70-78
  58. 58. Kumar Kodavoor S, Arsiwala AZ, Ramamurthy D. One-year clinical study on efficacy of corneal cross-linking in Indian children with progressive keratoconus. Cornea. Sep 2014;33(9):919-922
  59. 59. Ritu A, Deepa G, Lal GJ, Parul J. Results of corneal collagen cross-linking in pediatric patients. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2012;28:759-762
  60. 60. Nico C, Farhad H. Progression of keratoconus and efficacy of corneal collagen cross-linking in children and adolescents. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2012;28:753-758
  61. 61. Caporossi A, Mazzotta C, Baiocchi S, Caporossi T, Denaro R, Balestrazzi A. Riboflavin-UVA-induced corneal collagen cross-linking in pediatric patients. Cornea. Mar 2012;31(3):227-231
  62. 62. Mazzotta C, Traversi C, Baiocchi S. Corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and ultraviolet A light for pediatric keratoconus: Ten-year results. Cornea. 2018;37:560-566
  63. 63. Gore DM et al. Combined wavefront-guided transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy and corneal crosslinking for visual rehabilitation in moderate keratoconus. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2018;44:571-580
  64. 64. Sachdev GS, Ramamurthy S, Dandapani R. Comparative analysis of safety and efficacy of photorefractive keratectomy versus photorefractive keratectomy combined with crosslinking. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2018;12:783-790
  65. 65. Kanellopoulos AJ, Binder PS. Management of corneal ectasia after LASIK with combined, same-day, topography-guided partial transepithelial PRK and collagen cross-linking: The Athens protocol. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2011;27:323-331
  66. 66. Tamayo GE, Castell C, Vargas P, Polania E, Tamayo J. High-resolution wavefront-guided surface ablation with corneal cross-linking in ectatic corneas: A pilot study. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2017;11:1777-1783
  67. 67. Tamayo GE, Castell C, Vargas P, Polania E, Tamayo J. High-resolution wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy and accelerated corneal crosslinking for stabilization and visual rehabilitation of keratoconus eyes. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2020;14:1297-1305

Written By

Gustavo E. Tamayo, Eduardo J. Polania-Baron, Claudia Castell, Pilar Vargas and Juliana Tamayo

Submitted: August 30th, 2021 Reviewed: October 13th, 2021 Published: May 10th, 2022