Iontophoresis CXL With and Without Epithelial Debridement Versus Standard CXL: 2-Year Clinical Results of a Prospective Clinical Study.

PURPOSE

To compare the 2-year follow-up outcomes of three groups of patients with keratoconus treated with transepithelial iontophoresis (I-CXL), iontophoresis with epithelial removal (I-SCXL), and standard epithelium-off (S-CXL) CXL for progressive keratoconus.

METHODS

Sixty eyes of 60 patients treated with CXL for progressive keratoconus were included in this comparative, prospective clinical study. Twenty patients were included in each group (I-CXL, I-SCXL, and S-CXL). Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), refraction, corneal topography, Scheimpflug tomography, and aberrometry were assessed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up. To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of these treatments, the preoperative values were compared with the values at 24 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The main outcome of the study was the non-statistically significant difference between the three protocols in induced change in most of the parameters, including visual acuity (P = .665), topographic indexes (all P > .05), and maximum keratometry (P = .611) after 2 years of follow-up. There were no significant differences in the change in refractive error following CXL in all groups or between groups (all P > .05). Conversely, I-CXL induced significantly less corneal thinning (P = .0299 and .0121) and a significantly greater reduction of higher order aberrations and coma (all P < .0001) compared to S-CXL and I-SCXL. All protocols induced a significant increase in visual acuity (S-CXL P = .0004, I-SCXL P = .0045, and I-CXL P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The 2-year results of this comparative, prospective clinical study demonstrate the efficacy and safety of I-CXL to treat progressive keratoconus and overcome the limitations of CXL with epithelial debridement. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(3):184-190.].