Our main findings were that the corneal demarcation line was significantly deeper after a standard CXL protocol than after an accelerated one (
P < 0.001) or following iontophoresis (
P = 0.0101). Our results allowed us to discuss the indication and effectiveness of these two new procedures. The accelerated protocol initially was proposed as an alternative treatment to reduce procedure time by delivering a higher irradiance to the cornea.
35 As riboflavin acts as a photosensitizer, the deeper corneal demarcation line with standard CXL may be a consequence of this difference in soaking duration. Although the same number of photons interact with the fibrils in both protocols, since irradiance is 10 times higher with A-CXL, it is conceivable that this may result in endothelial injuries, though this, including in this study, has not been noted to date.
36,37 Thus, A-CXL appears to be a CXL modality that is safe. It also appears to be effective, since we noted stability of the Kmax, CCT, and BSCVA 6 months after the procedure (
Table 2). Thus, since A-CXL is effectively limited to a depth of 150 μm, we propose that the A-CXL protocol should be preferentially offered to patients whose minimum corneal thickness is between 350 and 400 μm, as standard CXL requires corneal pachymetry of at least 400 μm to protect the endothelial cells unless hypo-osmolar riboflavin also is used.
38 Intensification of the photochemical effect in the anterior part of the stroma with A-CXL also could lead to subsequent differences in tissue biomechanics, and may have implications in terms of tissue healing response and long-term clinical results. Nonetheless, A-CXL should be used as a less penetrating treatment to stabilize the progression of keratoconus in thinner corneas. Longer follow-up after A-CXL will be necessary to determine whether any subsequent tissue changes occur late in the recovery phase, to confirm the efficacy and safety of this procedure, and to correlate the depth of the demarcation line to the effect on corneal biomechanics. Iontophoresis is one of several transepithelial protocols developed to avoid the necessity for epithelial debridement.
39 Bikbova et al.
12 examined 22 eyes that underwent iontophoresis in a prospective study. They found a corneal demarcation line clearly visible on OCT and Heidelberg retinal tomography (HRT) at 1 month following treatment at a depth of 200 to 250 μ in all of their patients. Thus, they concluded that iontophoresis might be an effective method for riboflavin impregnation of the corneal stroma. However, their protocol for iontophoresis differed from ours. They used another iontophoresis device, the “galvanizator” (Potok-1; Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia) where riboflavin is administered over 10 minutes and the cornea then irradiated with a standard UVA light (370 nm, 3 mW/cm
2; Ufalink, Russian Federation, Ufa, Russia) for 30 minutes. The differences in these two techniques of iontophoresis, may explain the differences between our results and theirs. The reduced time of riboflavin exposure (5 minutes) in our protocol may not allow a sufficient penetration of riboflavin into the cornea. We found the corneal demarcation line with AS-OCT in half (47.7%) of the patients at a mean depth of 212 μm. Indeed, Caporossi et al.
11,40 investigated transepithelial crosslinking using modified riboflavin (Ricrolin TE) and confirmed that Epi-ON protocol resulted in keratoconus instability after 24 months of follow-up, especially in pediatric patients for whom this disease is known to have a more aggressive course. This lack of efficacy can be explained by limited UVA stromal penetration and inhomogeneous character of riboflavin penetration with the epithelium in situ.
11,41,42 Indeed, the presence of epithelium in situ is a physical barrier for riboflavin and also for UVA penetration, limiting the depth of apoptotic effect and the corneal biomechanical strength.
11 In addition, during UV exposure, riboflavin serves as a photosensitizer and as a UV light blocker.
37 Consequently, we could hypothesize that if insufficient riboflavin penetrates the cornea during iontophoresis, not only this will limit the efficacy of the procedure, but it also could damage the endothelial cells. Nonetheless, in our study, we did not find any endothelial loss after the I-CXL protocol and we found that the Kmax, CCT, and BSCVA all seemed stable 6 months after the procedure. However, a longer follow-up is necessary to conclude on the efficacy and safety of this new procedure and we must remain cautious with use of iontophoresis, as with the other Epi-ON protocols. Nonetheless, the enthusiasm for transepithelial CXL is easily understood, due to the reduction of CXL complications.
9 We believe that, at present, I-CXL should be used with extreme caution in pediatric patients, and preferentially proposed to patients with thin corneas and with slowly progressive keratoconus. Limitations of our study include the small sample size. A longer follow-up with a larger cohort of patients in different age groups is necessary to understand the actual impact of these different CXL protocols on stabilization of keratoconus and to determine which protocol is best suited to each patient.