title: Biological and biomechanical responses to traditional epithelium-off and transepithelial riboflavin-UVA CXL techniques in rabbits.
abstract: To compare the biological effects of riboflavin-ultraviolet A (UVA) corneal cross-linking (CXL) performed with a traditional epithelium-off method to several transepithelial methods in a rabbit model. Preliminary experiments on biomechanical rigidity were also performed.
  
  
  
  Four treatment groups were included: (1) standard epithelium-off, (2) tetracaine transepithelial, (3) benzal-konium chloride-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (BKC-EDTA) transepithelial, and (4) femtosecond laser-assisted transepithelial riboflavin-UVA CXL. Six eyes from each treatment group and the untreated control group were analyzed at 24 hours and 2 months after treatment in wound healing studies. The TUNEL assay was performed to detect the extent of stromal cell death. Optical density was measured with a Scheimpflug analyzer. The corneal stiffening effect was quantitated in three eyes from each group using optical coherence elastography performed 2 months after treatments.
  
  
  
  Twenty-four hours after CXL, stromal cell death extended full corneal thickness with both standard epithelium-off CXL and femtosecond laser-assisted CXL, but only approximately one-third stromal depth after BKC-EDTA transepithelial CXL. Negligible stromal cell death was detected with tetracaine transepithelial CXL. Cell death results were statistically different between the BKC-EDTA transepithelial CXL and standard epithelium-off CXL groups (P < .0001). Significant corneal opacity differences were noted. Standard epithelium-off CXL had the greatest density and tetracaine transepithelial CXL had the least density compared to the control group after treatment. As measured with optical coherence elastography, a trend toward greater mean stiffening was observed with BKC-EDTA transepithelial CXL than with epithelium-off CXL, femtosecond laser-assisted CXL, or tetracaine transepithelial CXL, but the result did not reach statistical significance. All of the CXL treatment groups exhibited significantly smaller variance of stiffness compared to the control group.
  
  
  
  In the rabbit model, BKC-EDTA transepithelial CXL produced less stromal cell death and less risk of endothelial cell damage than standard epithelium-off CXL or femtosecond laser-assisted CXL. Additional study is needed to determine whether biomechanical stiffness is significantly different between the epithelium-off CXL and transepithelial CXL groups.
authors: Cole Eye Institute, and Quantiative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA.
authors: Brian K
authors: BK
authors: Armstrong
authors: Michelle P
authors: MP
authors: Lin
authors: Matthew R
authors: MR
authors: Ford
authors: Marcony R
authors: MR
authors: Santhiago
authors: Vivek
authors: V
authors: Singh
authors: Gregory H
authors: GH
authors: Grossman
authors: Vandana
authors: V
authors: Agrawal
authors: Roy A
authors: RA
authors: Sinha
authors: Robert S
authors: RS
authors: Butler
authors: William J
authors: WJ
authors: Dupps
authors: Steven E
authors: SE
authors: Wilson
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001548:Benzalkonium Compounds / Q000494:pharmacology; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena / Q000502:physiology; D016923:Cell Death; D003315:Cornea / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000503:physiopathology*; D003319:Corneal Stroma / Q000473:pathology; D003432:Cross-Linking Reagents / Q000494:pharmacology*; D004548:Elasticity / Q000502:physiology*; D054459:Elasticity Imaging Techniques; D004728:Endothelium, Corneal / Q000473:pathology; D019573:Epithelium, Corneal / Q000187:drug effects; D020287:In Situ Nick-End Labeling; D054018:Lasers, Excimer / Q000627:therapeutic use; D017319:Photosensitizing Agents / Q000494:pharmacology*; D011817:Rabbits; D012256:Riboflavin / Q000494:pharmacology*; D013748:Tetracaine / Q000494:pharmacology; D041623:Tomography, Optical Coherence; D014466:Ultraviolet Rays
chemical_list: D001548:Benzalkonium Compounds; D003432:Cross-Linking Reagents; D017319:Photosensitizing Agents; D013748:Tetracaine; D012256:Riboflavin
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 2011 Dec;152(6):1082-3; author reply 1083-4
references: 22107942
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Nov;33(11):1982-4
references: 17964410
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Mar;35(3):606-7
references: 19251159
references: Exp Eye Res. 2006 May;82(5):788-97
references: 16303127
references: J Refract Surg. 2009 Nov;25(11):1034-7
references: 19731884
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Mar;35(3):540-6
references: 19251149
references: Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007 Aug;35(6):580-2
references: 17760642
references: Opt Express. 1998 Sep 14;3(6):199-211
references: 19384362
references: Acta Ophthalmol. 2009 Feb;87(1):48-51
references: 18547280
references: Cornea. 2012 Jun;31(6):702-5
references: 22378115
references: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1983 Oct;24(10):1408-10
references: 6618800
references: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Jan;51(1):129-38
references: 19643975
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 2011 Jul;152(1):22-27.e1
references: 21507377
references: Ophthalmology. 2012 Sep;119(9):1777-84
references: 22683058
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Dec;36(12):2105-14
references: 21111314
references: Heart. 2004 May;90(5):556-62
references: 15084558
references: Ophthalmic Res. 2003 Nov-Dec;35(6):324-8
references: 14688422
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 May;135(5):620-7
references: 12719068
references: Exp Eye Res. 2003 Jan;76(1):71-87
references: 12589777
references: Cornea. 2007 May;26(4):385-9
references: 17457183
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 2009 May;147(5):774-8, 778.e1
references: 19200532
references: J Refract Surg. 2010 Dec;26(12):942-8
references: 20166621
references: Eye Contact Lens. 2010 Mar;36(2):77-80
references: 20107418
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Jan;37(1):149-60
references: 21183110
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Dec;37(12):2137-43
references: 22108109
references: Br J Ophthalmol. 2011 Jun;95(6):876-80
references: 21357598
references: J Refract Surg. 2009 Sep;25(9):S824-8
references: 19772259
references: J Refract Surg. 2008 Sep;24(7):S720-5
references: 18811118
references: Exp Eye Res. 2010 Sep;91(3):326-35
references: 20599432
references: Curr Eye Res. 2010 Aug;35(8):715-21
references: 20673048
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 1982 Jan;93(1):1-29
references: 6801985
references: Eur J Ophthalmol. 2012;22 Suppl 7:S81-8
references: 22344471
references: J Refract Surg. 2011 Jun;27(6):401-7
references: 21162471
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Dec;33(12):2035-40
references: 18053900
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Aug;37(8):1488-92
references: 21782091
references: J Cell Sci. 1999 Mar;112 ( Pt 5):613-22
references: 9973596
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Jan;36(1):186-8; author reply 188-9
references: 20117737
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Apr;35(4):788-91
references: 19304108
references: J Biomed Opt. 2011 Jan-Feb;16(1):016005
references: 21280911
references: Ophthalmologe. 2008 May;105(5):485-7
references: 17661057
references: Cornea. 2007 Jun;26(5):600-5
references: 17525659
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Mar;35(3):588-9
references: 19251154
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 2012 Jan;153(1):24-8
references: 21861976
references: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 May;34(5):796-801
references: 18471635
references: Cornea. 2009 May;28(4):474-6
references: 19411973
references: Cornea. 2007 May;26(4):390-7
references: 17457184
references: Cornea. 2002 Jan;21(1):68-73
references: 11805511