Table A1: Effectiveness Reports of Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking of Keratoconus*.
| Author, Year | Site Country | Study Design and Follow-Up | Population | Study Objective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agrawal V, 2009 (49) | Clear Vision Eye Center, India | Retrospective pre-post longitudinal consecutive cohort Mean 10.1 ± 3.55 month (R, 6 to 16 months) |
25 P − 37 e Progressive KC Mean age 16.9 yrs± 3.5 (R, 12 to 39 yrs) |
To assess the impact of CXL at 1-yr follow-up in an Indian cohort affect with progressive KC |
| Arbelaez M, 2009 (50) | Muscat Eye Center, Oman | Prospective pre-post longitudinal cohort 1 year |
19 P (14 M, 5 F) − 20 e Progressive moderate to severe bilateral KC Mean age 24.4 yrs (R,18 to 44 yrs) |
To evaluate safety and effectiveness of CXL in improving visual acuity and stabilizing progression of KC |
| Caporossi A, 2006 (8) | Dpt Ophthalmology Siena University, Italy | Pre-post longitudinal cohort with untreated fellow-eye as control 6 months |
10 P (8M, 2F) − 10 e Bilateral progressive low or moderate KC Mean age 31.4 yrs(R, 21 to 39 yrs) |
To assess the effectiveness of CXL in reducing KC progression and improving vision |
| Caporossi A, 2010 (41) | Dpt Ophthalmology Siena University, Italy | Prospective pre-post longitudinal cohort with untreated fellow-eye as control 4 year |
44 P − 44 e Progressive KC Age range 10 to 40 yrs |
To assess the long term results of CXL for progressive KC |
| Doors M, 2009 (52) | Dpt Ophthalmology University Medical Center, Netherlands | Pre-post longitudinal consecutive cohort Mean 6.3 months ± 3.7 (R, 1 to 12-months |
29 P − 29 e 28 progressive KC, 1 post-LASIK ectasia Mean age 35.1 yrs± 11.7 (R, 19 to 76 yrs) |
To investigate the stromal demarcation line after CXL with optical coherence tomography and its impact on short term results in progressive KC |
| El-Raggal T, 2009 (53) | Dpt Ophthalmology, Ain Shams University Egypt | Pre-post longitudinal cohort 6 months |
9 P (3 M, 6 F) − 15 e KC (Krumeich grade 1 − 111) Mean age 26.4 yrs (R, 21 to 31) |
To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CXL in reducing KC progression and evaluate the visual and refractive changes |
| Hersch P, 2011 (47) | Cornea and Laser Eye Institute – Hersch Vision Group and Dpt Ophthalmology New Jersey Medical School, New Jersey | Multicenter prospective RCT 1 year |
58 P − 71 e (49 KC, 22 post-LASIkectasia) sham control 41 e (28KC, 13 post-LASIK ectasia) and control group 30 e (21 KC, 9 post-LASIK ectasia) | To evaluate the 1-year outcomes of CXL for treatment of progressive KC and LASIK<or photorefractive keratectomy induced corneal ectasia |
| Henriquez M, 2011 (44) | Oftalmo Salud Institute de Ojos, Peru | Pre-post longitudinal cohort and comparative untreated progressive KC control group 1 year |
10 P (8 M, 2 F) − 10 e Progressive KC (Krumeich grade 1, 11) Mean age 29.7 yrs (R, 15 to 43) |
To evaluate safety and efficacy of CXL for the treatment of progressive KC |
| Koller T, 2009 (55) | Institute for Refractive and Ophthalmic Surgery, Switzerland | Pre-post longitudinal cohort with untreated fellow-eye as control 1 year |
21 P (15M, 6 F) − 21 e Mild to moderate KC (n = 8), pellucid marginal degeneration (n = 4) mixed (n = 9) | To compare by Scheimpflug imaging changes in corneal geometric shape after CXL in CXL treated and untreated cases progressive actasia |
| Leccisotti A, 2010 (46) | School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulster, United Kingdom | Pre-post longitudinal cohort with untreated fellow-eye as control 1 year |
64 P Progressive KC Mean age 26.9 ± 6.3 yrs (R,18 to 39) |
To evaluate clinical effects of trans-epithelial CXL in progressive KC |
| Raiskup-Wolf F, 2008 (6) | Department Ophthalmology, CG Carus University Hospital, Germany | Prospective pre-post longitudinal cohort Mean 26.7 months± 16.2 (R, 12-months to 6 years) |
130 P − 241 e Progressive KC Mean age 30.04 yrs ± 10.46 |
To evaluate the long term effects of CXL in progressive KC |
| Saffarian L, 2010 (54) | Navid Didegan Eye Center, Iran | Prospective pre-post longitudinal cohort 1 year |
53 P (31 M, 22 F)) − 92 e Progressive KC Mean age 21.5 yrs± 3.4 (R,16 to 30) |
To evaluate outcomes of CXL for progressive KC in Iranian patients at 1 year |
| Vinciguerra P, 2009 (58) | Department Ophthalmology, Instituto Clinico Humanitas, Italy | Prospective pre-post longitudinal cohort with untreated as control 1 year |
28 P (20 M, 8 F) − 28 e Progressive KC (grade 111 AK stage) with fellow untreated eye (1-11 stage) as control Range 24 to 52 years |
To evaluate 1 year refractive, topographic, tomographic, and aberrometric outcomes after CXL for progressive KC |
| Vinciguerra P, 2010 (43) | Department Ophthalmology, Instituto Clinico Humanitas, Milano, Italy | Prospective pre-post longitudinal cohort with untreated as control 2 year |
28 P (20 M, 8 F) − 28 e Progressive KC (grade 111 AK stage) with fellow untreated eye (1-11 stage) as control Range 24 to 52 years |
To evaluate intra-operative and 2 year refractive, topographic, tomographic, and aberrometric outcomes after CXL for progressive KC |
| Wollensak G, 2003 (7) | Department Ophthalmology, Technical University of Dresden, Germany | Prospective pre-post longitudinal cohort with untreated fellow-eye as control Mean 23.2 months ±12.9 (R, 3 to 47 months) |
22 P (12M, 10F) − 23 e Moderate to advanced progressive KC with fellow untreated eye as control Mean age 31.7 yrs± 11.9 (R,13 to 58) | To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CXL on the progression of KC |
*
CXL indicates corneal cross-linking; E indicates eye; KC indicates keratoconus; M indicates male, F indicates female; P indicates people; SD indicates standard deviation; Yrs indicates years.