Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 25894

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : February | Volume : 18 | Issue : 2 | Page : NC07 - NC11 Full Version

Effect of Corneal Collagen Crosslinking with Riboflavin in Patients of Progressive Keratoconus: A Prospective Cohort Study


Published: February 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/63008.19057
Sabna Sasidharan, Laly Thekkemeppilly Unnikrishnan, Faiza Ibrahim

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India. 3. Senior Resident, Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Sabna Sasidharan,
Aswathy, Poothotta po, Ernakulam, Kochi, Kerala, India.
E-mail: sabnasasidharan@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Keratoconus is a non inflammatory disease characterised by progressive corneal thinning that results in a cone-like ectasia, irregular astigmatism, and decreased vision. Advanced disease can result in corneal scarring and blindness, necessitating penetrating keratoplasty. The only treatment believed to have the ability to stop or decrease the progression of keratoconus is Collagen Cross-Linking (CXL).

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin (C3R) in patients with keratoconus by studying the outcomes in terms of Uncorrected Visual Acuity (UCVA), Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA), manifest refraction, and corneal topography.

Materials and Methods: A hospital-based prospective cohort study was conducted at the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India from June 2017 to June 2018. Fifteen eyes of 12 patients who underwent corneal collagen cross-linking for progressive keratoconus were included. Routine ophthalmological examinations was done for all patients. Patients under the age of 35 years with progressive keratoconus, an average K value not exceeding 60 D, and who had not undergone any other surgical modalities of treatment were included in the study. Patients with scarred cornea or hydrops, active ocular infection, or pachymetry <400 μm were excluded. Detailed informed consent was obtained from all patients before surgery. Preoperative UCVA, BCVA cylinder, Spherical Equivalent (SE), and topography values were obtained. All patients were followed-up at three and six months postoperative period to look for changes in UCVA, BCVA, manifest refraction, and corneal topography. Data were expressed as the mean±Standard Deviation (SD) pre- and postoperatively and analysed statistically using the paired t-test, with p<0.05 considered statistically significant. Analysis was conducted using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0.

Results: On follow-up at six months post-treatment, UCVA (log MAR) improved from 0.87±0.40 to 0.65±0.35 (p-value=0.001), and BCVA (log MAR) changed from 0.37±0.21 to 0.17±0.22 (p-value=0.001). K max decreased from 54.90±6.05 to 52.67±5.02 (p-value=0.001), and K min decreased from 48.14±4.24 to 45.93±4.07 (p-value=0.001). Astigmatism and SE also showed statistically significant improvement post-procedure (p-value 0.001 and 0.002, respectively). Astigmatism reduced from -3.50±1.58 to -2.90±1.37. SE reduced from -4.93±3.92 to -4.28±3.48. No significant complications were noted in any of the patients.

Conclusion: The CXL is an effective procedure for stabilising the progression of keratoconus, thus reducing the burden of preventable blindness and the need for keratoplasty.

Keywords

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India. 3. Senior Resident, Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India.

Keratoconus is a bilateral, non inflammatory corneal ectasia characterised by progressive corneal thinning and protrusion leading to progressive myopia, irregular astigmatism, and corneal scarring (1). Several modalities such as hard contact lenses, intracorneal stromal ring implantation, and penetrating keratoplasty are used to treat keratoconus (1). Spectacles and contact lenses are the usual treatment modalities in the early stages of keratoconus. As the disease advances, severe corneal astigmatism and stromal opacities develop to the point where contact lenses can no longer provide useful vision, and penetrating keratoplasty becomes necessary to restore visual function (2). Penetrating keratoplasty is the most commonly performed surgical procedure for keratoconus, but is associated with complications, including graft rejection (3), and is also limited by the availability of donor corneas in developing countries. Additionally, all these techniques only correct the refractive error of the cornea with no effect on the progression of keratoconus (4). The only treatment believed to have the ability to stop or decrease the progression of keratoconus is CXL (5). CXL changes the biomechanical, thermomechanical, and morphological properties of the cornea (6). This procedure, utilising riboflavin and ultraviolet-A light, significantly increases the biomechanical strength of the cornea by photochemical cross-linking of individual collagen fibers (4). Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) has a dual function of acting as a photosensitiser for the production of oxygen free radicals, which induce physical CXL, and it provides a shielding effect by absorbing 90% of the UV-A irradiation, thereby preventing damage to deeper ocular structures. UV-A light of 370 nm wavelength at 3 mW/cm2 allows approximately 95% of the UV light to be absorbed into the cornea; thus, there is no risk of damage to the lens and retina (2),(7). It increases the stiffness and rigidity of the anterior corneal stroma and enhances corneal resistance to proteolytic enzymes by inducing photochemical cross-linking and covalent bonding between individual collagen fibers (5), thus preventing the progression of corneal ectasia in keratoconus and stabilising the vision. CXL halts the progression of keratoconus with a failure rate of approximately 3% and a complication rate of ≤1% (8). Since corneal CXL alters the corneal shape and structure, it would be helpful to assess resulting changes in quantitative descriptors of the cornea, which can affect the clinical outcome of this procedure. Studies by Bamdad S et al., and Greenstein SA et al., have shown that CXL improves visual acuity, average keratometry values, and definable measures of corneal topography regularity (9),(10).

Though it has been extensively studied in other parts of the world, there are limited studies regarding the same in India. The current study aims to evaluate the efficacy of C3R in preventing the progression of keratoconus and stabilising the vision by studying the outcome in terms of UCVA, BCVA, manifest refraction, and corneal topography in South Indian patients. The study also had an objective to note the side-effects of CXL, if any.

Material and Methods

This hospital-based prospective cohort study was conducted at the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India from June 2017 to June 2018. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC No.068/HEC/RIOTVPM dated 35/02/2017). Informed consent was obtained from all the patients.

Inclusion criteria: Patients aged <35 years with progressive keratoconus who were not improving with spectacles or contact lenses and with an average k value not exceeding 60D were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients who had undergone any other surgical modalities of treatment for keratoconus were excluded. Pregnant or lactating women, patients with active ocular inflammation, chronic ocular surface disease, autoimmune diseases, and a past history of herpetic disease were also excluded from the study. Patients with a scarred cornea, central corneal thickness <400 μm, and vision at presentation <2/60 were also excluded from the study.

Sample size: The sample size was calculated from preoperative and postoperative UCVA in the reference study by Arbelaez MC et al., based on the formula (2).

N=(zα/2+z1-β)21222)/(μ12)2 Where (zα/2+z1-β)2=7.9 for α=0.05 and β=0.2

In the reference study, the mean preoperative UCVA was found to be 1.18±0.69 and the mean six months postoperative UCVA was 0.63±0.32. So the calculated sample size was 15.

A history was taken using a proforma, routine ophthalmological examination, and measurement of the following parameters before and after C3R: UCVA, BCVA, cylinder value, and SE. UCVA and BCVA were measured using a log MAR chart. Corneal topography and central corneal thickness were measured with an ultrasonic Pachymeter (Quantel medical- compact touch). Corneal curvature was measured with an auto refractometer/keratometer and corneal topography (Topcon corneal topographer-KR-1W). Refraction was measured with an auto refractometer and subjective refraction. SE was calculated as the spherical refractive error plus 0.5×cylindrical refractive error (11). For example, if the refraction is +2.50 DS -0.50DC at 90°, the SE is calculated as SE=+2.50+(-0.50/2)=+2.25 DS.

Study Procedure

Initial assessment included history taking using a proforma, and routine ophthalmological examination was done. The procedure was performed in the operating room under sterile conditions. Topical proparacaine hydrochloride (0.5%) eye drops were instilled before the procedure. The central 8 mm corneal epithelium was removed by mechanical debridement to allow better penetration of riboflavin (Table/Fig 1). This was followed by the application of the photosensitiser riboflavin (0.1% solution) to the de-epithelised cornea every two minutes for a period of approximately 30 minutes. Exposure to UV-A light was initiated after ensuring that adequate penetration of riboflavin had occurred, as indicated by the presence of yellow flare in the anterior chamber (Table/Fig 2). The cornea was then subjected to UV-A radiation (370 nm) in a dose of 3 mW/cm2 by an irradiating source placed at a distance of 5 cm from the center of the cornea. To complete photosensitisation and to provide photoprotection by a barrier effect, riboflavin drops were again instilled every two minutes during the irradiation treatment. On completion of the procedure, antibiotic drops were instilled, following which a sterile Bandage contact lens was applied for three days or until there was re-epithelialisation of the cornea. Patients were instructed to use antibiotic and steroid eye drops four times a day for a week following the procedure. The steroid drops were gradually tapered over one month.

Statistical Analysis

The data was entered in MS Excel and analysed using SPSS version 16.0. All parameters were analysed pre and postoperatively using the paired t-test for each parameter. The data was expressed as the mean±SD pre and postoperatively. A p-value of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Fifteen eyes of 12 patients who underwent corneal C3R with riboflavin for progressive keratoconus were studied. Demographic details are shown in (Table/Fig 3).

Changes in Uncorrected Visual Acuity (UCVA): The mean preoperative UCVA was 0.87±0.40 (log MAR), which improved to 0.75±0.39, three months post-treatment and was found to be statistically significant (p-value=0.001). The UCVA further improved to 0.65±0.35 at six months follow-up (p-value=0.001) (Table/Fig 4).

Changes in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA): The mean preoperative BCVA was 0.37±0.21 (log MAR), which improved to 0.25±0.27, three months postoperatively, which was found to be statistically significant (p-value=0.001). At six months follow-up, there was further improvement to 0.17±0.22 (p-value=0.0001) (Table/Fig 5).

Changes in Keratometry

Changes in Kmax

The mean preoperative Kmax was 54.90±6.05. Three months after the procedure, it decreased to 53.67±5.32 and was found to be statistically significant (p-value=0.001). At six months follow-up, it further decreased to 52.67±5.02 (p-value=0.001) (Table/Fig 6).

Changes in K min

The mean baseline Kmin in dioptres was 48.14±4.24 (mean±SD), which decreased to 46.88±3.89 three months after the procedure (p-value=0.001). At six months follow-up, it further reduced to 45.93±4.07 (p-value=0.001) (Table/Fig 7).

Changes in cylinder value: The mean preoperative cylinder value was -3.50±1.58, which decreased to -3.35±1.54 (p-value 0.03) at three months follow-up and -2.90±1.37 at six months follow-up. Both changes were found to be statistically significant (p-value=0.01) (Table/Fig 8).

Changes in Spherical Equivalent (SE): The mean preoperative SE was -4.93±3.92, which decreased to -4.69±3.76, three months after the procedure (p-value=0.032). At six-month follow-up, it further decreased to -4.28±3.48 (p-value=0.002) (Table/Fig 9).

In the current study, out of the 15 eyes studied, 14 of the eyes showed improvement in visual acuity, gradual reduction in keratometry values, and gradual flattening of the cornea, reducing the astigmatism post-surgery. Only one patient showed mild worsening of corneal topography and manifest refraction, but he maintained his preoperative UCVA and BCVA with glasses. The patient had chronic allergic conjunctivitis with constant eye rubbing, which probably resulted in further progression of keratoconus.

Discussion

Corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and UVA (CXL) is a new technique of corneal tissue strengthening that combines the use of riboflavin and UVA irradiation. Riboflavin works as a photosensitiser for the induction of cross-links between collagen fibrils and at the same time acts as a shield from the penetration of UVA into the underlying tissues (2). It was first introduced by Wollensak G et al., as a promising technique to slow or stop the progression of keratoconus. He included 23 eyes with moderate or advanced progressive keratoconus and showed that CXL was effective in halting the progression of keratoconus over a period of four years. In all treated eyes, the progression of keratoconus was at least stopped. In 16 eyes (70%), regression with a reduction of the maximal keratometry readings by 2.01 diopters was noted (4), whereas in the current study, Kmax decreased by 2.23 D.

CXL treatment has an arresting effect on the progression of keratoconus. Due to an increased number of cross-linking sites within the collagen molecule after CXL, stiffer fibrils and lamellae are likely generated. This process produces a rearrangement of corneal lamellae and the consequent relocation of the surrounding matrix, which, in turn, results in the reduction of the central corneal curvature. A small regression occurring may be explained as an effect of the rearrangement of corneal lamellae and the surrounding matrix (12). Various studies have proved the efficacy of the procedure in reducing the corneal curvature, SE refraction, and astigmatism in keratoconus eyes after the application of CXL (4),(9),(12),(13),(14),(15). Kymionis GD et al., demonstrated that there was no discrepancy in terms of endothelial cell density between treated and untreated eyes, thus proving the safety of the method (16).

In the present study, 15 eyes of 12 patients with progressive keratoconus who underwent corneal collagen cross-linking were included. In the study done by Nasrollahi K et al., 140 eyes of 110 patients were studied (17). In a study done by Raiskup-Wolf F et al., 480 eyes of 272 patients were included (18). Other similar studies with a relatively small sample size include that done by Arbelaez MC et al., where 20 eyes of 19 patients were studied (2). The minimum age of the patients in the present study was 15, and the maximum age was 26. The mean age of the patients was 19.62±3.52 years. A study done by Fatima T et al., found that in India, keratoconus presents at an early age compared to the Western population (19). In the study done by Arbelaez MC et al., the mean age of the patients was found to be 24.4 years. Patients ranging from 18-44 years of age were studied by them (2). Meanwhile, the current study did not include patients aged over 35 years. In a study done by Koller T et al., it was found that restricting patient age to younger than 35 years may reduce the complication rate to 1% (8).

In the study done by Caporossi A et al., patients were divided into three groups based on age: paediatric patients (age ≤18 years), an intermediate group (19-26 years), and adults (≥27 years). The study found that corneal collagen cross-linking was more effective in the paediatric and intermediate age groups on long-term follow-up (20). The male-to-female ratio in the present study was 5:1. This can be attributed to the fact that the majority of the patients who presented to the OPD of the institute at the time of the study were males. In a study from North India (21) and one from Western India (22), keratoconus was noted more often in males, while the Central India study found a higher prevalence in women (23).

All the patients were followed-up for a period of six months to look for changes in UCVA, BCVA, corneal topography, and manifest refraction. In the current study, UCVA improved by 0.22 (from 0.87±0.40 to 0.65±0.35) at the final follow-up after six months post-surgery, which was found to be statistically significant (p-value=0.001). In the study done by Arbelaez MC et al., UCVA improved by 0.55 at six months follow-up (2). In a similar study done by Saffarian L et al., UCVA improved by 0.3D one year after the procedure (14). BCVA showed an improvement of 0.2 (from 0.37±0.21 to 0.17±0.22) at six months follow-up, which was also found to be statistically significant (p-value=0.001). In the study by Arbelaez MC et al., BCVA improved by 0.16 at six months follow-up (2). Similar studies done by Bamdad S et al., and Peyman A et al., have found statistically significant improvement in BCVA following the procedure [9,24]. A study done in India on paediatric patients by Arora R et al., has demonstrated statistically significant improvement in both uncorrected and BCVA following the procedure (25). Thus, most of the studies have demonstrated an improvement in visual acuity following corneal collagen cross-linking irrespective of the population demographic.

In the present study, Kmax and Kmin showed a gradual flattening in comparison with the preoperative values at all postoperative visits in a statistically significant manner. Kmax decreased by 2.23D (from 54.90±6.05 to 52.67±5.02) and Kmin decreased by 2.21D (from 48.14±4.24 to 45.93±4.07) at the final follow-up after six months. Keratometry values showed a reducing trend in all patients except one in the current study. The patient had a history of allergic conjunctivitis with constant eye rubbing, and slight worsening of keratometry values were noted on follow-up.

In the first in-vivo controlled clinical study by Wollensak G et al., which included 23 eyes with moderate or advanced progressive keratoconus, max K decreased by 2.01 D post-procedure (4). Another study by Jankov II MR et al., found that progression of keratoconus stopped in all patients in which it was actively progressing six months prior to treatment. Max K decreased by more than 2D (12).

Agrawal VB in his study found similar results among an Indian population of 37 eyes after one year of follow-up. The K value of the apex decreased by a mean of 2.73 D in 66% of eyes, and the maximum K value decreased by a mean of 2.47D in 54% of eyes (26). Wittig-Silva C et al., and Hersh PS et al., observed a reduction in the value of Kmax at the end of their one-year study (13),(27). Kankariya VP et al., noticed transient worsening of the topographic indices in the early postoperative period, but these indices stabilised on subsequent visits without any intervention (28).

The cylinder value decreased by 0.6D at six months in the current study (from -3.50±1.58 to -2.90±1.37). In similar studies done by Bamdad S et al., and Jankov II MR et al., the cylinder value decreased by 0.6D and 0.5 D, respectively (9),(12). In the study done by Saffarian L et al., the mean cylinder value decreased by 0.78D at one-year follow-up (14). These changes might be indicative of gradual corneal flattening post-corneal collagen cross-linking. In the current study, SE was found to be decreasing in all postoperative visits. It decreased by 0.65 Dioptres at six months follow-up (from -4.93±3.92 to -4.28±3.48). In the study done by Vinciguerra P et al., mean SE refraction showed a significant decrease of 1.57 dioptres 24 months after the procedure (15). No significant complications were noted in any of the patients post-procedure.

Corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin is a promising treatment in arresting the progression of keratoconus. With the patients being diagnosed and treated early, late complications like acute hydrops and corneal scarring can be avoided. It could also reduce the need for keratoplasty. Given the low cost and simplicity of the procedure, it can be widely done in developing countries, compared to other modalities like intracorneal ring segments. Collagen cross-linking is now also being evaluated in the treatment of other conditions like post-LASIK ectasia, keratitis, and corneal oedema (29).

Limitation(s)

Limitations of the present study include a shorter follow-up period. Since the patients were followed-up for only six months, it is not known whether the disease has progressed at a later stage or not.

Conclusion

Corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin is a safe, simple, and effective procedure for arresting the progression of keratoconus, with the majority of patients obtaining an improvement in visual acuity. It is a simple, safe, and effective procedure that could help to reduce the burden of preventable blindness. Long-term results are necessary to evaluate the duration of the stiffening effect and to exclude long-term side effects.

References

1.
Kennedy RH, Bourne WM, Dyer JA. A 48-year clinical and epidemiologic study of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986;101(3):267-73. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Arbelaez MC, Sekito MB, Vidal C, Choudhury SR. Collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and ultraviolet-A light in keratoconus: One-year results. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2009;2(1):33-38. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Sharif KW, Casey TA. Penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus: Complications and long-term success. Br J Ophthalmol. 1991;75:142-46. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Wollensak G, Spoerl E, Seiler T. Riboflavin/ultraviolet-a-induced collagen crosslinking for the treatment of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135(5):620-27. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Asri D, Touboul D, Fournié P, Malet F, Garra C, Gallois A, et al. Corneal collagen crosslinking in progressive keratoconus: Multicenter results from the French National Reference Center for Keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(12):2137-43. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Derakhshan A, Shandiz JH, Ahadi M, Daneshvar R, Esmaily H. Short-term outcomes of collagen crosslinking for early keratoconus. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2011;6(3):155-59.
7.
Wollensak G. Crosslinking treatment of progressive keratoconus: New hope. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17(4):356-60. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Koller T, Mrochen M, Seiler T. Complication and failure rates after corneal crosslinking. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(8):1358-62. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Bamdad S, Sedaghat M, Bagheri M, Ghavami S. Changes in corneal topography and biomechanical properties after collagen cross linking for keratoconus: 1-year results. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2015;22(2):212. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Greenstein SA, Fry KL, Hersh PS. Corneal topography indices after corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: One-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(7):1282-90. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Harris WF. Astigmatism. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt J Br Coll Ophthalmic Opt Optom. 2000;20(1):11-30. [crossref]
12.
Jankov II MR, Jovanovic V, Delevic S, Coskunseven E. Corneal collagen cross-linking outcomes: Review. Open Ophthalmol J. 2011;5:19-20. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Wittig-Silva C, Whiting M, Lamoureux E, Lindsay RG, Sullivan LJ, Snibson GR. A randomized controlled trial of corneal collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconus: Preliminary results. J Refract Surg Thorofare NJ 1995. 2008;24(7):S720-25. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Saffarian L, Khakshoor H, Zarei-Ghanavati M, Esmaily H. Corneal crosslinking for keratoconus in Iranian patients: Outcomes at 1 year following treatment. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2010;17(4):365-68. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Vinciguerra P, Albé E, Frueh BE, Trazza S, Epstein D. Two-year corneal cross-linking results in patients younger than 18 years with documented progressive keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(3):520-26. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Kymionis GD, Kounis GA, Portaliou DM, Grentzelos MA, Karavitaki AE, Coskunseven E, et al. Intraoperative pachymetric measurements during corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and ultraviolet A irradiation. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2336-39. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Nasrollahi K, Ghoreishi M, Hanjani S, Ziaie H, Mohammadinia M, Kabiri M, et al. Evaluation of the outcomes of corneal collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconic eyes. Adv Biomed Res. 2015;4:208. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Raiskup-Wolf F, Hoyer A, Spoerl E, Pillunat LE. Collagen crosslinking with riboflavin and ultraviolet-A light in keratoconus: Long-term results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(5):796-801. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Fatima T, Acharya MC, Mathur U, Barua P. Demographic profile and visual rehabilitation of patients with keratoconus attending contact lens clinic at a tertiary eye care centre. Contact Lens Anterior Eye J Br Contact Lens Assoc. 2010;33(1):19-22. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Caporossi A, Mazzotta C, Baiocchi S, Caporossi T, Denaro R. Age-related long-term functional results after riboflavin UV a corneal cross-linking. J Ophthalmol. 2011;2011:608041.[crossref][PubMed]
21.
Sharma R, Titiyal JS, Prakash G, Sharma N, Tandon R, Vajpayee RB. Clinical profile and risk factors for keratoplasty and development of hydrops in north Indian patients with keratoconus. Cornea. 2009;28(4):367-70. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Agrawal VB. Characteristics of keratoconus patients at a tertiary eye center in India. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2011;6(2):87-91.
23.
Jonas JB, Nangia V, Matin A, Kulkarni M, Bhojwani K. Prevalence and associations of keratoconus in rural Maharashtra in central India: The central India eye and medical study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148(5):760-65. [crossref][PubMed]
24.
Peyman A, Kamali A, Khushabi M, Nasrollahi K, Kargar N, Taghaodi M, et al. Collagen cross-linking effect on progressive keratoconus in patients younger than 18 years of age: A clinical trial. Adv Biomed Res. 2015;4:245. [crossref][PubMed]
25.
Arora R, Gupta D, Goyal JL, Jain P. Results of corneal collagen cross-linking in paediatric patients. J Refract Surg Thorofare NJ. 1995. 2012;28(11):759-62. [crossref][PubMed]
26.
Agrawal VB. Corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and ultraviolet - a light for keratoconus: Results in Indian eyes. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2009;57(2):111-14. [crossref][PubMed]
27.
Hersh PS, Greenstein SA, Fry KL. Corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: One-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(1):149-60. [crossref][PubMed]
28.
Kankariya VP, Kymionis GD, Diakonis VF, Yoo SH. Management of paediatric keratoconus - evolving role of corneal collagen cross-linking: An update. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013;61(8):435-40. [crossref][PubMed]
29.
Hovakimyan M, Guthoff RF, Stachs O. Collagen cross-linking: Current status and future directions. J Ophthalmol. 2012;2012:406850.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/63008.19057

Date of Submission: Jul 26, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Oct 06, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Dec 12, 2023
Date of Publishing: Feb 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jul 27, 2023
• Manual Googling: Oct 18, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Dec 09, 2023 (21%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 6

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com