4.6 Article

Modeling the efficacy profiles of UV-light activated corneal collagen crosslinking

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175002

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan [MOST 105-0221-E-039-006]
  2. New Vision Inc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Analysis of the crosslink time, depth and efficacy profiles of UV-light-activated corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL). Methods A modeling system described by a coupled dynamic equations are numerically solved and analytic formulas are derived for the crosslinking time (T*) and crosslinking depth (z*). The z-dependence of the CXL efficacy is numerically produced to show the factors characterizing the profiles. Results Optimal crosslink depth (z*) and maximal CXL efficacy (Ceff) have opposite trend with respective to the UV light intensity and RF concentration, where z* is a decreasing function of the riboflavin concentration (C-o). In comparison, Ceff is an increasing function of C-o and the UV exposure time (for a fixed UV dose), but it is a decreasing function of the UV light intensity. CXL efficacy is a nonlinear increasing function of [C-o/I-o](- 0.5) and more accurate than that of the linear theory of Bunsen Roscoe law. Depending on the UV exposure time and depth, the optimal intensity ranges from 3 to 30 mW/cm(2) for maximal CXL efficacy. For steady state (with long exposure time), low intensity always achieves high efficacy than that of high intensity, when same dose is applied on the cornea. Conclusions The crosslinking depth (z*) and the crosslinking time (T*) have nonlinear dependence on the UV light dose and the efficacy of corneal collagen crosslinking should be characterized by both z* and the efficacy profiles. A nonlinear scaling law is needed for more accurate protocol.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available