Transepithelial Versus Epithelium-off Corneal Cross-linking for the Treatment of Progressive Keratoconus: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effects and safety of transepithelial corneal cross-linking (CXL) to epithelium-off (epi-off). CXL in progressive keratoconus. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial (noninferiority). METHODS: Patients received either transepithelial CXL with Ricrolin TE (n = 35) or epi-off CXL with isotonic riboflavin (n = 26) in 1 academic treatment center, using a simple unrestricted randomization procedure. The main outcome measure was clinical stabilization of keratoconus after I year, defined as a maximal keratometry (Kmax) increase <1 diopter (D). RESULTS: Average Kmax was stable at all visits in the transepithelial group, while after epi-off CXL a significant flattening of 1.2-1.5 D was demonstrated from the 3-month follow-up onwards. The trend over time in Kmax flattening was significantly different between the groups (P = .022). Eight eyes (23%) in the transepithelial group showed a Kmax increase of > 1 D after 1 year (range 1.3-5.4 D) vs none in the epi-off group (P = .017). There was significant different trend in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), with a more favorable outcome in the transepithelial group (P = .023). In the transepithelial group, no complications occurred and in the epi-off group, 4 eyes (15%) developed complications owing to healing problems (sterile infiltrate, herpes keratitis, central haze, and stromal scar). CONCLUSION: This study showed that although transepithelial CXL was a safe procedure without epithelial healing problems, 23% of cases showed a continued keratoconus progression after 1 year. Therefore, at this time, we do not recommend replacing epi-off CXL by transepithelial CXL for treatment of progressive keratoconus. (C) 2015 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.