For this model, it was assumed that the irradiation intensity and therefore the induced polymerization rate by singular oxygen could theoretically be increased without any limit, and thereby neglecting the fact that endothelial damage can occur if the irradiation intensity is too high. Using cell cultures, Wollensak et al.
19 showed that UV irradiation without application of riboflavin as a photosensitizer causes endothelial cell damage at irradiation levels of 4 mW/cm
2 for 30 minutes (radiant exposure, 7.2 J/cm
2). With the additional application of riboflavin (concentration of 0.025%), the damage threshold is lowered by a factor of 10, to an irradiance of 0.35 mW/cm
2 or a threshold radiant exposure of 0.63 J/cm
2. This raises the question of whether the damage is related to the applied intensity or the induced radicals surrounding the endothelial cells. According to our model, the induced radicals are related to the combination of intensity, concentration, and time (
equation 8) by the correlation coefficient
R 0. Remodelling the data published by Wollensak et al.
19 in consideration of their cell culture setup, we derived a damage threshold value for the endothelium cell apoptosis of
d[
M]/
dt = 0.003 ×
R 0 for an induced rate of radicals (cross-links). Similar values (
d[
M]/
dt = 0.002 ×
R 0) for the damage threshold rate of induced radicals can be derived by remodelling the data of the rabbit study (corneal thickness, 400 μm) published by the same research group.
20 Furthermore, recalculating the keratocyte cell damage in different depths of keratocyte loss, the threshold value varies between
d[
M]/
dt = 0.003 ×
R 0 and
d[
M]/
dt = 0.006 ×
R 0.
21 Thus, the damage threshold of the induced polymerization rate for cell structures seems to belong to a specific rate of induced radicals (cross-links). In our current model, this value tends toward
d[
M]/
dt = 0.003 ×
R 0. The consequences of modeling CXL are demonstrated in
Figure 5. Modifying intensity, concentration distribution, or treatment time would result in different cross-link depth with a different amount of induced cross-links and therefore a different increase in corneal stiffness. A consequence of these results is that CXL does not follow the Bunsen-Roscoe law of reciprocity.
22 (A specific biological effect is directly proportional to the total energy dose,, regardless of the regimen.) Our results show that cross-linking is not directly proportional to the total irradiation dose. This initial assumption was used to explain the equivalence of experimental results concerning the stiffness increase of porcine corneal strips that were treated with a rapid (higher intensity and shorter treatment time) or standard CXL procedure.
23 Similar results could be shown by other studies that applied a constant energy dose of 5.4 J/cm
2. Roizenblatt et al. (
IOVS 2010;51:ARVO E-Abstract4979) showed a statistically equivalent increase in corneal stiffness after cross-linking, using an irradiation of 3 mW/cm
2 for 30 minutes and of 9 mW/cm
2 for 10 minutes. A study by Krueger et al.
24 showed equivalence for groups illuminated with 2 mW/cm
2 for 45 minutes, 3 mW/cm
2 for 30 minutes, 9 mW/cm
2 for 10 minutes, and 15 mW/cm
2 for 6 minutes. Although these results validate the Bunson-Roscoe law, there is evidence against its validity, published by Lanchares et al.
25 In this study, rabbit corneas were illuminated with 3 mW/cm
2 for 30 minutes and with the same intensity for 60 minutes. As expected, a statistically significant increase in corneal stiffness was found for the standard parameters of 3 mW/cm
2 for 30 minutes. However, no increase was found for the corneas that have been illuminated for 60 minutes. Assuming the validity of the Bunson-Roscoe law, in the 60-minute group, the stiffness increase should be larger than in the standard group, as a consequence of the increased energy dose. Thus, the evidence on whether or not the Bunson-Roscoe law can be directly applied to CXL is inconclusive.