Cross-linking – review of therapy options
 
More details
Hide details
1
Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji w Krakowie / Independent Public Health Care Institution of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration in Kraków, Poland
 
2
Szpital Wojewódzki im. Św. Łukasza Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Tarnowie / Provincial Hospital named after St. Luke, Independent Public Health Care Institution in Tarnów, Poland
 
3
Kliniczny Oddział Okulistyki, Wojewódzki Szpital Okulistyczny w Krakowie / Clinical Ophthalmology Department, Provincial Ophthalmological Hospital in Kraków, Poland
 
 
Corresponding author
Natalie Papachristoforou   

Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji w Krakowie, ul. Kronikarza Galla 25, 30-053 Kraków
 
 
Ann. Acad. Med. Siles. 2025;79:56-63
 
The content presented in the article complies with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration, EU directives and harmonized requirements for biomedical journals.
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
In recent years, keratoconus has become an increasingly prevalent eye disease, characterized by progressive thinning of the central or paracentral cornea. The primary treatment is corneal cross-linking (CXL), which offers a wide range of therapeutic techniques. The main aim of this review is to compile and present the most commonly used CXL treatment methods in a manner that will help clinicians create the most appropriate treatment plan based on each patient’s unique needs.

Review methods:
This review is based on 42 articles meticulously selected through open-access sources, utilizing the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. The search encompassed therapeutic approaches to CXL for both adults and children. The literature review covers publications from 2003 to 2024.

State of knowledge:
CXL is considered a primary therapeutic strategy for the management of keratoconus. Numerous studies suggest that this treatment modality exhibits superior efficacy in patients suffering from this condition.

Conclusions:
This review evaluates various CXL. The transepithelial cross-linking (TE-CXL) approach retains the epithelial layer, which reduces postoperative complications and enables treatment for thinner corneas and advanced keratoconus. Although the aforementioned method is safer, less painful, and promotes faster recovery, its effectiveness may be compromised by inadequate riboflavin penetration. Conversely, epithelium-off (epi-off) CXL, especially the Dresden protocol, remains the gold standard, though it poses risks of complications such as pain. The study emphasizes the need to balance safety and efficacy when choosing CXL methods, while recognizing that all the methods are effective in managing keratoconus progression.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
REFERENCES (42)
1.
Caruso C., D’Andrea L., Troisi M., Rinaldi M., Piscopo R., Troisi S. et al. Corneal collagen cross-linking in patients with keratoconus from the Dresden protocol to customized solutions: theoretical basis. Int. J. Ophthalmol. 2024; 17(5): 951–962, doi: 10.18240/ijo.2024.05.21.
 
2.
Wójcik-Niklewska B., Filipek E., Janik P. Corneal cross-linking for pediatric keratoconus. Diagnostics 2024; 14(17): 1950, doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14171950.
 
3.
Bilgihan K., Yesilirmak N., Altay Y., Yuvarlak A., Ozdemir H.B. et al. Conventional corneal collagen cross-linking versus transepithelial diluted alcohol and iontophoresis-assisted corneal cross-linking in progressive keratoconus. Cornea 2017; 36 (12): 1492–1497, doi: 10.1097/ico.0000000000001383.
 
4.
Zhang X., Zhao J., Li M., Tian M., Shen Y., Zhou X. Conventional and transepithelial corneal cross-linking for patients with keratoconus. PLoS One 2018; 13(4): e0195105, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195105.
 
5.
Angelo L., Gokul Boptom A., McGhee C., Ziaei M. Corneal crosslinking: present and future. Asia Pac. J. Ophthalmol. (Phila) 2022; 11(5): 441–452, doi: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000557.
 
6.
Ouyang B.W., Ding H., Wang H., Yang Z.D., Zhong T. et al. Comparison of corneal biological parameters between transepithelial and epithelium-off corneal cross-linking in keratoconus. Int. J. Ophthalmol. 2021; 14(7): 998–1005, doi: 10.18240/ijo.2021.07.06.
 
7.
Chan E., Snibson G.R. Current status of corneal collagen cross‐linking for keratoconus: a review. Clin. Exp. Optom. 2013; 96(2): 155–164, doi: 10.1111/cxo.12020.
 
8.
Magli A., Forte R., Tortori A., Capasso L., Marsico G., Piozzi E. et al. Epithelium-off corneal collagen cross-linking versus transepithelial cross-linking for pediatric keratoconus. Cornea 2013; 32(5): 597–601, doi: 10.1097/ico.0b013e31826cf32d.
 
9.
Chan C.C., Sharma M., Wachler B.S. Effect of inferior-segment Intacs with and without C3-R on keratoconus. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2007; 33(1): 75–80, doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.09.012.
 
10.
Baiocchi S., Mazzotta C., Caporossi A. Reply: Safety and efficacy of transepithelial crosslinking (C3-R/CXL). J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2010; 36 (1): 188–189, doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.09.012.
 
11.
Subasinghe S.K., Ogbuehi K.C., Dias G.J. Current perspectives on corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL). Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2018; 256(8): 1363–1384, doi: 10.1007/s00417-018-3966-0.
 
12.
Bottós K.M., Dreyfuss J.L., Regatieri C.V, Lima-Filho A.A., Schor P., Nader H.B. et al. Immunofluorescence confocal microscopy of porcine corneas following collagen cross-linking treatment with riboflavin and ultraviolet A. J. Refract. Surg. 2008; 24(7): S715–719, doi: 10.3928/1081597x-20080901-14.
 
13.
Vinciguerra P., Montericcio A., Catania F., Fossati G., Raimondi R., Legrottaglie E.F. et al. New perspectives in keratoconus treatment: an update on iontophoresis-assisted corneal collagen crosslinking. Int. Ophthalmol. 2021; 41(5): 1909–1916; doi: 10.1007/s10792-021-01713-4.
 
14.
Fard A.M., Reynolds A.L., Lillvis J.H., Nader N.D. Corneal collagen cross-linking in pediatric keratoconus with three protocols: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. AAPOS 2020; 24(6): 331–336, doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2020.08.013.
 
15.
Ameen S.S., Mehboob M.A., Ali K. Efficacy and safety of transepithelial collagen cross linking for progressive keratoconus. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2016; 32(5): 1111–1115, doi: 10.12669/pjms.325.10922.
 
16.
Uysal B.S., Yüksel M., Özmen M.C., Aydın B., Bilgihan K. Epithelium-off corneal cross-linking versus transepithelial diluted alcohol and iontophoresis-assisted corneal cross-linking in keratoconus patients with thin corneas. Gulhane Med. J. 2022; 64(3): 255–261, doi: 10.4274/gulhane.galenos.2022.75437.
 
17.
Deshmukh R., Ong Z.Z., Rampat R., Alió Del Barrio J.L., Barua A., Ang M. et al. Management of keratoconus: an updated review. Front. Med. (Lausanne) 2023; 10: 1212314, doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1212314.
 
18.
Wollensak G., Spoerl E., Seiler T. Riboflavin/ultraviolet-a–induced collagen crosslinking for the treatment of keratoconus. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2003; 135(5): 620–627, doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(02)02220-1.
 
19.
Sorkin N., Varssano D. Corneal collagen crosslinking: a systematic review. Ophthalmologica 2014; 232(1): 10–27, doi: 10.1159/000357979.
 
20.
Alhayek A., Lu P.R. Corneal collagen crosslinking in keratoconus and other eye disease. Int. J. Ophthalmol. 2015; 8(2): 407–418, doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.02.35.
 
21.
Agarwal R., Jain P., Arora R. Complications of corneal collagen cross-linking. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2022; 70(5): 1466–1474, doi: 10.4103/ijo.ijo_1595_21.
 
22.
Jiang L.Z., Qiu S.Y., Li Z.W., Zhang X., Tao X.C., Mu G.Y. Therapeutic and inducing effect of corneal crosslinking on infectious keratitis. Int. J. Ophthalmol. 2016; 9(12): 1820–1823, doi: 10.18240/ijo.2016.12.20.
 
23.
Sitaula S., Singh S.K., Gurung A. Bilateral viral keratitis following corneal collagen crosslinking for progressive keratoconus. J. Ophthalmic. Inflamm. Infect. 2019; 9(1): 16, doi: 10.1186/s12348-019-0185-8.
 
24.
Dhawan S., Rao K., Natrajan S. Complications of corneal collagen cross-linking. J. Ophthalmol. 2011; 2011: 869015, doi: 10.1155/2011/869015.
 
25.
Blaser F., Zweifel S., Wiest M.R.J., Bajka A., Said S., Barthelmes D. et al. Severe complications after corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL). Klin. Monbl. Augenheilkd. 2023; 240(4): 369–378, doi: 10.1055/a-2040-4290.
 
26.
Cantemir A., Alexa A.I., Galan B.G., Anton N., Ciuntu R.E., Danielescu C. et al. Iontophoretic collagen cross-linking versus epithelium-off collagen cross-linking for early stage of progressive keratoconus: 3 years follow-up study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017; 95(7): e649–e655, doi: 10.1111/aos.13538.
 
27.
Rossi S., Orrico A., Santamaria C., Romano V., De Rosa L., Simonelli F. et al. Standard versus trans-epithelial collagen cross-linking in keratoconus patients suitable for standard collagen cross-linking. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2015; 9: 503–509, doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S73991.
 
28.
Badawi A.E. Corneal haze and densitometry in keratoconus after collagen cross-linking by three different protocols. J. Curr. Ophthalmol. 2022; 33(4): 422–430, doi: 10.4103/joco.joco_145_21.
 
29.
Razmjoo H., Rahimi B., Kharraji M., Koosha N., Peyman A. Corneal haze and visual outcome after collagen crosslinking for keratoconus: a comparison between total epithelium off and partial epithelial removal methods. Adv. Biomed. Res. 2014; 3: 221, doi: 10.4103/2277-9175.145677.
 
30.
Tian M., Jian W., Zhang X., Sun L., Shen Y., Zhou X. Predictive factors of the accelerated transepithelial corneal cross-linking outcomes in keratoconus. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022; 22(1): 7, doi: 10.1186/s12886-021-02235-4.
 
31.
Deshmukh R., Hafezi F., Kymionis G.D., Kling S., Shah R., Padmanabhan P. et al. Current concepts in crosslinking thin corneas. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2019; 67(1): 8–15, doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1403_18.
 
32.
Kobashi H., Hieda O., Itoi M., Kamiya K., Kato N., Shimazaki J. et al. Corneal cross-linking for paediatric keratoconus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2021; 10(12): 2626, doi: 10.3390/jcm10122626.
 
33.
Chen X., Stojanovic A., Eidet J.R., Utheim T.P. Corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) in thin corneas. Eye Vis. (Lond.) 2015; 2: 15, doi: 10.1186/s40662-015-0025-3.
 
34.
Jacob S., Kumar D.A., Agarwal A., Basu S., Sinha P., Agarwal A. Contact lens-assisted collagen cross-linking (CACXL): a new technique for cross-linking thin corneas. J. Refract. Surg. 2014; 30(6): 366–372, doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20140523-01.
 
35.
Namitha V.G., Kumar D.A. Intraocular lens power calculation changes before and after isotonic collagen cross-linking in keratoconus patients. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2022: 70(1): 114–117, doi: 10.4103/ijo.ijo_395_21.
 
36.
Hafezi F. Corneal cross-linking for keratoconus: exploring the issues regarding accelerated protocols and thin corneas. J. Ophthalmic Vis. Res. 2021; 16(3): 314–316, doi: 10.18502/jovr.v16i3.9425.
 
37.
McAnena L., Doyle F., O’Keefe M. Cross-linking in children with keratoconus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017; 95(3): 229–239, doi: 10.1111/aos.13224.
 
38.
Polido J., Araújo M.E.X.D.S., Wakamatsu T.H., Alexander J.G., Cabral T., Ambrósio R. Jr, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of corneal collagen crosslinking in a pediatric group with progressive keratoconus: a 7-year follow-up. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2023; 250: 59–69, doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2023.01.012.
 
39.
Wajnsztajn D., Shmueli O., Tarnovsky Y., Frucht-Pery J., Solomon A. Outcome indicators for cross linking in pediatric keratoconus. Front. Med. (Lausanne) 2023; 10: 1149641, doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1149641.
 
40.
Khalil A.K. A study on the effectiveness of accelerated crosslinking in managing cases with progressive keratoconus in children and adolescents. Egypt. J. Hosp. Med. 2022; 88(1): 3798–3801, doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2022.252209.
 
41.
Li Y., Lu Y., Du K., Yin Y., Hu T., Fu Y. et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety between standard, accelerated epithelium-off and transepithelial corneal collagen crosslinking in pediatric keratoconus: a meta-analysis. Front. Med. (Lausanne) 2022; 9: 787167, doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.787167.
 
42.
Gupta Y., Shanmugam C., Priyadarshini K., Mandal S., Tandon R., Sharma N. Pediatric keratoconus. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2025; 70(2): 296–330, doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2024.10.003.
 
eISSN:1734-025X
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top