Reem O Nughays, Abdullah S Bazayd, Lujain A Alshamekh, Reemas A Alshammari, Mohammed A Alenezi, Hashem Y Dahlan, Jana A Alsubhi, Sara G Alshammri, Nouf A AlQurashi, Abdulaziz H Aldajani, Abdulrahman H Alrammah, Mariam N Alenezi, Areej Abdullah Almutairi, Abdulaziz F Alomayri, Saeed Alghamdi
{"title":"Epi-On和Epi-Off角膜交联治疗角膜扩张的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。","authors":"Reem O Nughays, Abdullah S Bazayd, Lujain A Alshamekh, Reemas A Alshammari, Mohammed A Alenezi, Hashem Y Dahlan, Jana A Alsubhi, Sara G Alshammri, Nouf A AlQurashi, Abdulaziz H Aldajani, Abdulrahman H Alrammah, Mariam N Alenezi, Areej Abdullah Almutairi, Abdulaziz F Alomayri, Saeed Alghamdi","doi":"10.2147/OPTH.S508618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Corneal ectasias are progressive conditions that impair vision and quality of life. Corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) aims to halt disease progression by strengthening the cornea. This review compares two CXL methods, epithelium-on (epi-on) and epithelium-off (epi-off), to assess their safety and effectiveness for managing corneal ectasia. A systematic search up to July 2024 of PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and Scopus identified 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 872 patients and 1041 eyes. Data were analyzed following PRISMA guidelines using fixed-effects and random-effects models. The primary outcome was the change in maximal keratometry (Kmax) at 12 months, with secondary outcomes including safety profile, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), spherical equivalent (SE), and endothelial cell count (ECC). The findings revealed no statistically significant differences between epithelium-on (epi-on) and epithelium-off (epi-off) CXL in Kmax, BCVA, UCVA, SE, or corneal curvature parameters. However, epithelium-off (epi-off) CXL was associated with less endothelial cell loss and higher rates of side effects, including corneal haze and postoperative discomfort. The choice of treatment should be tailored to individual patient needs, balancing clinical goals and safety considerations. This review highlights the need for further studies to optimize CXL approaches and improve outcomes while minimizing complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":93945,"journal":{"name":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","volume":"19 ","pages":"1531-1541"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12068400/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Epi-On vs Epi-Off Corneal Cross-Linking in Corneal Ectasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Reem O Nughays, Abdullah S Bazayd, Lujain A Alshamekh, Reemas A Alshammari, Mohammed A Alenezi, Hashem Y Dahlan, Jana A Alsubhi, Sara G Alshammri, Nouf A AlQurashi, Abdulaziz H Aldajani, Abdulrahman H Alrammah, Mariam N Alenezi, Areej Abdullah Almutairi, Abdulaziz F Alomayri, Saeed Alghamdi\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/OPTH.S508618\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Corneal ectasias are progressive conditions that impair vision and quality of life. Corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) aims to halt disease progression by strengthening the cornea. This review compares two CXL methods, epithelium-on (epi-on) and epithelium-off (epi-off), to assess their safety and effectiveness for managing corneal ectasia. A systematic search up to July 2024 of PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and Scopus identified 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 872 patients and 1041 eyes. Data were analyzed following PRISMA guidelines using fixed-effects and random-effects models. The primary outcome was the change in maximal keratometry (Kmax) at 12 months, with secondary outcomes including safety profile, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), spherical equivalent (SE), and endothelial cell count (ECC). The findings revealed no statistically significant differences between epithelium-on (epi-on) and epithelium-off (epi-off) CXL in Kmax, BCVA, UCVA, SE, or corneal curvature parameters. However, epithelium-off (epi-off) CXL was associated with less endothelial cell loss and higher rates of side effects, including corneal haze and postoperative discomfort. The choice of treatment should be tailored to individual patient needs, balancing clinical goals and safety considerations. This review highlights the need for further studies to optimize CXL approaches and improve outcomes while minimizing complications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"1531-1541\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12068400/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S508618\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S508618","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
角膜扩张是一种进行性疾病,会损害视力和生活质量。角膜胶原交联(CXL)旨在通过加强角膜来阻止疾病的进展。这篇综述比较了两种CXL方法,上皮-on (epi-on)和上皮-off (epi-off),以评估它们治疗角膜扩张的安全性和有效性。截至2024年7月,我们对PubMed、Medline、Web of Science、Cochrane Central、b谷歌Scholar和Scopus进行了系统搜索,确定了13项随机对照试验(RCTs),涉及872名患者和1041只眼睛。数据按照PRISMA指南使用固定效应和随机效应模型进行分析。主要终点是12个月时最大角膜度数(Kmax)的变化,次要终点包括安全性、最佳矫正视力(BCVA)、未矫正视力(UCVA)、球面等效视力(SE)和内皮细胞计数(ECC)。结果显示上皮开启(epi-on)和上皮关闭(epi-off) CXL在Kmax、BCVA、UCVA、SE或角膜曲率参数上无统计学差异。然而,上皮脱落(epi-off)的CXL与较少的内皮细胞损失和较高的副作用发生率相关,包括角膜雾霭和术后不适。治疗的选择应根据个别患者的需要,平衡临床目标和安全考虑。本综述强调需要进一步研究以优化CXL入路,改善预后,同时尽量减少并发症。
Efficacy and Safety of Epi-On vs Epi-Off Corneal Cross-Linking in Corneal Ectasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Corneal ectasias are progressive conditions that impair vision and quality of life. Corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) aims to halt disease progression by strengthening the cornea. This review compares two CXL methods, epithelium-on (epi-on) and epithelium-off (epi-off), to assess their safety and effectiveness for managing corneal ectasia. A systematic search up to July 2024 of PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and Scopus identified 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 872 patients and 1041 eyes. Data were analyzed following PRISMA guidelines using fixed-effects and random-effects models. The primary outcome was the change in maximal keratometry (Kmax) at 12 months, with secondary outcomes including safety profile, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), spherical equivalent (SE), and endothelial cell count (ECC). The findings revealed no statistically significant differences between epithelium-on (epi-on) and epithelium-off (epi-off) CXL in Kmax, BCVA, UCVA, SE, or corneal curvature parameters. However, epithelium-off (epi-off) CXL was associated with less endothelial cell loss and higher rates of side effects, including corneal haze and postoperative discomfort. The choice of treatment should be tailored to individual patient needs, balancing clinical goals and safety considerations. This review highlights the need for further studies to optimize CXL approaches and improve outcomes while minimizing complications.