
==== Front
Ophthalmol Ther
Ophthalmol Ther
Ophthalmology and Therapy
2193-8245
2193-6528
Springer Healthcare Cheshire

39110318
993
10.1007/s40123-024-00993-0
Original Research
Could Automated Objective Measurements Acquired at the Preoperative Stage Estimate the Corrected Distance Visual Acuity after Corneal Cross-Linking in Keratoconus?
Gilevska Fanka fanka.gilevska@gmail.com

1
Biscevic Alma 2
Bohac Maja 2
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8242-7256
Patel Sudi 2
1 Eye Clinic Sistina Oftalmologija, Skupi 5A, Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia
2 Department of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, University Eye Hospital Svjetlost, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
7 8 2024
7 8 2024
10 2024
13 10 25992614
16 4 2024
27 6 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Introduction

Objective markers describing corneal optical density (COD), thinnest corneal thickness (TCT), and anterior (ARC) and posterior (PRC) surface radii over the 3 mm thinnest region of the cornea were investigated to provide a model for estimating corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) after corneal cross-linking (CXL) in keratoconus.

Methods

CDVA, COD, TCT, ARC, and PRC were monitored (using Pentacam™) over 1 year in patients with (1) keratoconus treated with routine CXL (2) relatively stable untreated keratoconus, and (3) age/gender-matched controls.

Results

In group 1 (n = 77), the median logMAR CDVA (mode, interquartile range) improved significantly (p < 0.01) from 0.26 (0.22, 0.12–0.65) to 0.07 (0.00, 0.02–0.21). The mean (± standard deviation, 95% confidence interval) COD (in 0–100 grey scale units) in the 0–2 mm central anterior corneal region (0–2 ant), TCT (µm), ARC (mm), and PRC (mm) changed significantly (p < 0.01), from 21.2 (± 3.70, 20.4–22.0), 454 (± 40.0, 446–462), 6.49 (± 0.71, 6.33–6.65), and 4.81 (± 0.65, 4.66–4.96) to 31.5 (± 9.19, 29.5–33.6), 423 (± 49.3, 412–434), 6.78 (± 0.80, 6.60–6.98), and 4.74 (± 0.64, 4.59–4.88), respectively, but remained stable in groups 2 (n = 23) and 3 (n = 24). Significant relationships (p < 0.01) were uncovered between postop CDVA and preop values of COD, TCT, ARC, and PRC. Multilinear regression revealed significant correlations between CDVA at 1 year and preop COD, TCT, ARC, and PRC (r2 = 0.533, r20-2ant = 0.126, r2TCT = 0.321, r2ARC = 0.506, r2PRC = 0.467). Including preop CDVA further enhanced this correlation (r2 = 0.637, r2LogMAR CDVApreop = 0.566).

Conclusion

CXL improved CDVA, increased COD and ARC, and reduced TCT and PRC. The chance of correctly estimating the CDVA at 1 year after CXL using preoperative markers of COD, TCT, ARC, and PRC is 53%, improving to 64% with the inclusion of preoperative CDVA. Objective measurements taken at the preoperative screening stage may be useful to estimate the likely postoperative CDVA when preoperative CDVA measures are unreliable or unobtainable.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT06522789.

Keywords

Keratoconus
Corneal cross-linking
Corneal optical density
Anterior and posterior corneal radii
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcKey Summary Points

Why carry out this study?	
Patients with keratoconus consider cross-linking to halt disease progression and reduce their dependence upon spectacles and/or contact lenses. A major hurdle is advising the individual patient on the visual acuity they are likely to achieve after cross-linking.	
What did the study ask? What was the study’s hypothesis?	
Could objective measurements of the cornea estimate corrected distance visual acuity after cross-linking? Corrected distance visual acuity, corneal optical density, thickness, and surface shapes were monitored over 1 year after routine uncomplicated cross-linking and tested to formulate models for estimating the corrected distance visual acuity.	
What was learned from the study?	
Cross-linking changes corneal optical density, thickness, and surface shapes. Preoperative values of these factors correlated with the corrected distance visual acuity 6 and 12 months after cross-linking.

Automated objective measurements of the cornea estimate the corrected distance of visual acuity after corneal cross-linking when the preoperative assessment of acuity is unreliable.

	

Introduction

Corneal cross-linking (CXL) is an established treatment for decelerating, if not arresting, the progression of keratoconus and improving corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) by remodeling the cornea [1–4]. Several attempts have been made to predict the CDVA following CXL. Better outcomes are expected when the preop CDVA is ≥ 20/40, corneal thickness is < 450μm, surface power is > 45D, and the keratoconic apex is centrally located [5–7]. Corneal thickness tends to reduce [6–8] whereas the turbidity, or optical density, within the treated region increases after CXL [6, 8–16]. The objective estimations of corneal optical density (COD) correlate with the biomicroscopic grading of corneal haze, predominantly located in the anterior aspects of the CXL-treated cornea [17]. Other reports also confirm that COD changes occur mainly in the cornea’s anterior central and paracentral regions after CXL [12, 13, 18, 19]. Corneal transparency has long been linked to visual acuity [20]. The reduced CDVA often observed in Fuch’s dystrophy [21] or after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) [22, 23] is associated with increasing corneal turbidity. The increase in COD after CXL could counterbalance, if not exceed, the potential gain in CDVA resulting from the remodeling of the corneal surface in some instances. An increase in corneal turbidity tends to affect the CDVA after treatment of keratoconus with CXL [16] or CXL combined with PRK [24]. In contrast to these findings, a few reports claim there are poor correlations between the increase in COD, as measured by Pentacam™, and CDVA after CXL [6, 10, 11, 25]. COD increases tend to plateau by 3 months and gradually decrease toward the end of the first year following CXL [6]. At the same time, corneal thickness follows an inverse trajectory by reducing up to the third month then gradually increasing toward the end of the first year after CXL [26].

Pentacam uses a Scheimpflug imaging process to create a three-dimensional (3D) model of the diameter, curvatures, front and back surface elevations, topographic thickness, and with additional software, the optical density variations over the cornea [27]. The model displays COD on a 0–100 scale in grayscale units (GSU). A relatively high GSU score indicates a region where the cornea is hazy, and a relatively low GSU score for a region where the cornea is more transparent.

Anecdotal (unpublished) evidence based on 20 randomly selected cases implied that Pentacam-derived measures of preoperative COD and thinnest corneal thickness (TCT) may be associated with the CDVA after CXL. The preop CDVA and ratio (ARC/PRC) between the averaged anterior (ARC) and posterior (PRC) corneal radii of curvature, over a 3-mm-diameter region covering the thinnest region of the cornea, values are highly correlated with the CDVA after CXL [28]. So, if the COD and TCT values are significantly associated with CDVA after CXL, then models could be constructed to estimate CDVA on the basis of objective and subjective factors or just objective factors evaluated at the preoperative stage. Measurements of subjective visual acuity can be unreliable or suspicious, if not impossible in some cases. A model derived from purely objective measurements sourced preoperatively might be useful for predicting the likely CDVA that could be achieved after CXL in such cases.

This study aimed to monitor changes in CDVA, COD, TCT, ARC, and PRC over 12 months after routine uncomplicated CXL for keratoconus and determine whether there were any associations between these characteristics. Should significant associations be uncovered, the study would be extended to determine whether models could be developed that may be useful to estimate the CDVA after CXL on the basis of subjective and/or objective data acquired before CXL.

Methods

Pilot Study

A preliminary study was undertaken to determine the minimum sample size that should be considered before embarking on the main study. The preoperative COD, TCT, and CDVA values at 1 year postoperatively were sourced from 20 randomly selected records of patients who had undergone unremarkable CXL for keratoconus. The correlations between CDVA at 1 year and preoperative anterior COD and TCT were –0.485 (p = 0.03) and 0.862 (p < 0.01), respectively. Hence, a more substantial investigation should include no fewer than 20 cases.

Main Study

A prospective, partially masked, interventional clinical trial was undertaken between April 2018 and July 2023 in the refractive surgery department of the Sistina Ophthalmology Hospital in Skopje. The criteria for selecting cases for cross-linking were set by the overseeing Ethics Committees at Sistina Oftalmologija in Skopje and Svjetlost in Zagreb. The authors complied with the ethics committee. The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and its later amendments. All patients were fully informed about the procedures, risks, and benefits and provided signed informed consent. All patients and subjects were examined, operated where appropriate, and followed up by the same clinical team. The study was registered with Clinical Trials Protocol Registration and Results System (ref: NCT06522789).

Preliminary Assessment and Indications for Cross-Linking

A complete ophthalmological examination was performed at the first and all follow-up visits. The examination included assessment of CDVA (Aitomu LCD Digital Vision Eye Chart, Shanghai, China), refraction, tonometry, corneal characteristics using Pentacam HR (Oculus, Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany), biomicroscopy, and dilated fundus examination. Corneal topography, thickness distribution, and COD profiles were captured for later analysis. The COD profile describes the turbidity of the cornea in the central apical region and three concentric annular zones (central 0–2 mm, paracentral 2–6 mm and 6–10 mm, peripheral 10–12 mm) within three separate layers along the depth of the cornea (anterior 120 µm, posterior 60 µm, and central bed between the anterior and posterior layers). The Pentacam software computes a figure, ranging from 0 (totally clear) to 100 (totally opaque), along a greyscale describing the optical density in each of the 12 regions. A high figure signifies increased turbidity and reduced transparency, and a low figure signifies the opposite. The software also averages the total optical density in the apex, each concentric zone, each layer, and the cornea. A total of 20 COD values are generated for a single cornea. COD values for the central 0–2 mm region covering the anterior (0–2 ant) and central layers (0–2 cent), paracentral 2–6 mm annulus covering the anterior (2–6 ant) and central layers (2–6 cent), total anterior region layer (tot ant), total central layer (tot cent), and whole cornea (tot) were recorded. Separate COD values for the peripheral (6–10 mm and 10–12 mm annuli) and posterior (60 µm) regions of the cornea were excluded as these regions are least likely to be affected by CXL [11, 13]. On all occasions, three consecutive Pentacam scans were taken in a dark room, and the best-quality scan was selected for recording and analysis. For each case, the COD (in greyscale units), thinnest corneal thickness (TCT, µm), and anterior (ARC) and posterior (PRC) corneal radii of curvature (mm) values measured over a 3-mm-diameter zone covering the cone of the cornea were obtained from the best scan.

Keratoconus subjects were classed as those scheduled for CXL (group 1) and those who would remain untreated (group 2). Group 1 consisted of cases where the astigmatism had increased by 1D or more, according to subjective refraction and/or corneal surface topography over the previous year. The majority of group 2 subjects consisted of confirmed keratoconus without signs of progression who opted to continue with their prescription glasses and tear-enhancing drops where necessary. A small number of cases who declined CXL treatment, content with their prescription glasses, were also included in this group. A control group, of age- and gender-matched individuals without signs of keratoconus was also included (group 3). All cases had clear corneas free of scarring on slit-lamp examination. The clinical team members who performed refraction duties always harvested data from the Pentacam but remained unaware of each subject’s group allocation.

Standard Dresden Protocol Corneal Cross-Linking Procedure

The CXL procedure adhered to the standard Dresden protocol. All patients received topical anesthetic (tetracaine 0.5%, Alcon Forth Worth, Texas) and miotic (Isopto Carpine 2%, Alcon, Fort Worth, Texas) drops 30 min before the procedure. The periocular region and conjunctival sac were washed with 10% povidone-iodine (Betadine 10%, Alcaloid, Skopje). Manual epithelial scraping with a crescent knife followed. Pachymetry was kept over 400 μm during the procedure and measured with an ultrasound hand pachymeter (Pocket II, Quantel Medical, Cournon d'Auvergne, France). Riboflavin (Peschke D, Peschke Trade, Huenenberg, Switzerland) was applied every 3 min for 30 min. We performed corneal UV-A radiation with a wavelength of 370 nm and energy of 3 mW using a UVA CXL lamp (VEGA CBM-X-Linker, Carleton Optical, Chesham, UK) for 30 min (six cycles of 5 min each). Device testing was performed before every procedure, and irradiance density measured between 2.7 and 3.3 mW/cm2 was tolerated. At the end of the corneal CXL procedure, topical atropine 1% (Atropine Sulphate, Cooper, Athens, Greece) and antibiotic (Tobrex, Alcon, Fort Worth, Texas) drops were instilled and a bandage soft contact lens (Air Optix Night & Day Aqua, Alcon, Texas) was placed over the cornea. Peschke® D riboflavin used in the study group was a standard riboflavin solution consisting of 0.1% riboflavin diluted into 20% dextran 500. The solution was recommended initially for the Dresden protocol; the soaking time was 20–30 min or until riboflavin particles were visible in the anterior chamber by microscopy. Tobradex (Alcon, Fort Worth, Texas) eyedrops, a suspension of 0.3% tobramycin and 0.05% dexamethasone, were prescribed for application after CXL. The dosage was four times per day for the first 2 weeks, then tapered twice daily for the next 2 weeks, and then to one drop per day for the last 2 weeks. All patients received topical steroids for a total of 6 weeks.

Postoperative Management

Postoperative treatment included a combination of antibiotic/corticosteroid drops (Tobradex, Alcon, Fort Worth, Texas) instilled four times daily for the next 2 weeks, after which the drops were tapered off gradually over 6 weeks. Postoperative examinations were scheduled for 1 day, 4 days, and 1 week until epithelization and bandage lens removal, then 1, 3, and 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. After that, the patients were advised to complete an ophthalmological examination at least annually.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data from the treated eye, or just the right eye in bilateral cases, were analyzed. Details of CDVA, COD, TCT, ARC, and PRC values were stored in Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) and analyzed to determine the significance of any differences between groups (Mann–Whitney U test or unpaired t-test) and changes occurring within each group (Friedman test or one-way ANOVA for repeat measures, Wilcoxon signed rank, or paired t-test). If significant changes were found, the analysis was extended to determine the significance of any association between the change (i.e., preop value − postop value) in the parameter and the value at the start of the study (Spearman’s rho or Pearson correlation). Depending on the outcome of this analysis, the data were further scrutinized to determine whether a feasible model could be constructed (linear and multiple regression analysis) to predict the likely CDVA after CXL or after 1 year in untreated cases. Nonparametric tests were applied when data were not normally distributed (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of normality). Changes and differences were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05.

Results

The total number of patients who underwent CXL was 77; 23 were females, and 54 were male, with a mean (± SD, range) age of 24.2 (± 7.0, 11–44) years (group 1). Twenty-three patients, including 6 females and 17 males with mean age of 27.3 (± 7.0, 17–44) years, were untreated (group 2). None of the patients were lost to follow-up. Twenty-four subjects, including 9 females and 15 males with mean age of 24.7 (± 7.6, 17–45) years, were recruited as controls (group 3). These subjects were examined at the start of the study and 12 months later. Significant intergroup differences existed in CDVA, COD, TCT, ARC, and PRC throughout the study. These are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, with changes in CDVA, COD, TCT, ARC, and PRC in each group. The key findings were as follows. Table 1 Comparison of median and mode of logMAR corrected distance visual acuity values between groups 1 and 2, and in group 3 between the start and 12 months (interquartile ranges in parenthesis)

Session	Group 1 (treated)	Group 2 (untreated)	p	
Start	0.26, 0.22 (0.12–0.65)	0.10, 0.00 (0.02–0.13)	 < 0.01	
1 month	0.26, 0.22 (0.13–0.52)	0.05, 0.05 (0.02–0.22)	 < 0.01	
3 months	0.16, 0.02 (0.05–0.35)	0.05, 0.05 (0.02–0.16)	 < 0.01	
6 months	0.16, 0.02 (0.02–0.24)	0.05, 0.02 (0.02–0.19)	0.12	
12 months	0.07, 0.00 (0.02–0.21)	0.05, 0.02 (0.02–0.16)	0.50	
	Group 3 (control)		
	Start	12 months		
	0.00, 0.00 (–0.15 to 0.00)	–0.01, 0.00 (–0.14 to 0.00)	1.00	
	Group 3 (control)	
Start		12 months		
	0.00, 0.00 (–0.15 to 0.00)	–0.01, 0.00 (–0.14 to 0.00)	1.00	

Table 2 Mean [± SD, 95% CI limits] corneal optical density (COD) values for the anterior (0–2 ant) and central layers (0–2 cent) within the corneal apex, paracentral 2–6 mm annulus covering the anterior (2–6 ant) and central layers (2–6 cent), total anterior layer (tot ant), total central layer (tot cent), and whole cornea (tot)

Location	Start	1 month	3 months	6 months	12 months	
Group 1 (treated)	
 0–2 ant	21.2 [3.70, 20.4–22.0]	35.4 [9.18, 33.4–37.5]	37.8 [10.11, 37.6–37.9]	34.8 [9.81,32.6–37.0]	31.5 [9.19, 29.5–33.6]	
 0–2 cent	15.5 [1.85, 15.1–15.9]	24.9 [7.36, 23.4–26.3]]	24.9 [7.11, 23.1–26.5]]	23.1 [7.04, 21.5–24.6]	20.9 [6.03, 19.6–22.3]	
 2–6 ant	17.5 [2.19, 17.0–18.0]	28.5 [6.00, 26.1–29.8]	27.1 [5.04, 26.0–28.2]	23.8 [4.31, 22.8–24.7]	21.7 [3.92, 20.8–22.5]	
 2–6 cent	13.5 [1.42, 13.2–13.8]	20.4 [3.33, 19.6–21.1]	18.7 [3.19, 18.0–91.4]	16.7 [2.74, 16.1–17.3]	15.2 [2.26, 14.7–15.7]	
 tot ant	18.5 [2.42, 17.9–19.0]	25.9 [4.41, 24.9–26.9s]	25.6 [4.18, 24.7–26.6]	23.6 [3.60, 22.7–24.5]	22.4 [3.24, 21.7–23.1]	
 tot cent	14.5 [1.54, 14.1–14.8]	19.1 [2.71, 18.5–19.7]	18.3 [2.83, 17.6–18.9]	17.0 [2.46, 16.5–17.6]	16.1 [2.15, 15.6–16.6]	
Tot	14.9 [1.62, 14.6–15.3]	19.6 [2.79, 19.0–20.2]	19.0 [2.89, 18.4–19.7]	17.7 [2.51, 17.1–18.3]	17.0 [2.21, 16.5–17.5]	
Group 2 (untreated)	
 0–2 ant	20.8 [2.73, 19.7–21.9]	20.6 [3.90, 19.0–22.2]	19.9 [2.49, 18.9–20.9]	19.9 [2.50, 18.8–20.9]	19.4 [3.18, 18.1–20.7]	
 0–2 cent	15.9 [1.78, 15.2–16.7]	15.5 [1.51, 14.9–16.1]	15.2 [1.51, 14.6–15.8]	15.1 [1.41, 14.6–15.7]	14.8 [1.78, 14.1–15.5]	
 2–6 ant	18.2 [2.11, 17.3–19.1]	17.8 [3.08, 16.7–19.2]	17.3 [1.86, 16.5–18.0]	17.2 [2.01, 16.4–18.1]	16.8 [2.35, 15.8–17.8]	
 2–6 cent	14.0 [1.32, 13.5–14.6]	13.7 [1.07, 13.2–14.1]	13.4 [1.25, 12.9–13.9]	13.3 [1.35, 12.8–13.9]	13.0 [1.51, 12.4–13.6]	
 tot ant	19.4 [2.69, 18.3–20.5]	19.4 [2.53, 18.4–20.4]	18.4 [2.25, 17.5–19.3]	18.8 [2.06, 18.0–19.7]	18.2 [2.41, 17.2–19.2]	
 tot cent	15.1 [1.57, 14.4–15.7]	14.8 [1.36, 14.2–15.4]	14.4 [1.73, 13.7–15.1]	14.3 [2.66, 13.2–15.4]	14.3 [1.70, 13.6–15.0]	
Tot	15.6 [1.73, 14.8–16.3]	15.4 [1.56, 14.7–16.0]	14.9 [1.71, 14.2–15.6]	15.2 [1.44, 14.6–15.8]	14.7 [1.79, 14.0–15.5]	
Group 3 (control)	
	Start	12 months	
 0–2 ant	19.7 [2.07, 18.9–20.6]	18.3 [2.19, 17.4–19.2]	
 0–2 cent	15.2 [1.31, 14.7–15.8]	14.3 [1.69, 13.6–15.0]	
 2–6 ant	17.9 [1.87, 17.2–18.7]	16.7 [1.94, 15.9–17.5]	
 2–6 cent	13.7 [1.20, 13.2–14.2]	13.0 [1.56, 12.3–13.6]	
 tot ant	18.8 [2.30, 17.9–19.7]	17.7 [2.93, 16.5–18.9]	
 tot cent	14.8 [1.90, 14.0–15.6]	14.3 [2.37, 13.3–15.2]	
Tot	15.3 [1.90, 14.5–16.0]	14.7 [2.3, 13.7–15.6]	

Table 3 Comparison of mean thinnest corneal thickness (µm) values (± SD, 95% CI limits) between groups 1 and 2, and in group 3 between the start and 12 months

Session	Group 1 (treated)	Group 2 (untreated)	p	
Start	454 (± 40.0, 446–462)	486 (± 34.1, 472–500)	 < 0.01	
1 month	424 (± 46.6, 413–435)	487 (± 35.1, 473–501)	 < 0.01	
3 months	418 (± 41.1, 409–427)	488 (± 37.1, 473–503)	 < 0.01	
6 months	422 (± 48.3, 412–434)	486 (± 33.9, 472–500)	 < 0.01	
12 months	423 (± 49.3, 412–434)	487 (± 34.5, 473–501)	 < 0.01	
Session	Group 3 (control)	
	Start	12 months		
	549 (± 31.3, 537–562)	548 (± 29.3, 536–560)	0.84	

Table 4 Comparison of mean anterior corneal radius (mm) values (± SD, 95% CI limits) between groups 1 and 2, and in group 3 between the start and 12 months

Session	Group 1 (treated)	Group 2 (untreated)	p	
Start	6.49 (± 0.71, 6.33–6.65)	7.06 (± 0.65, 6.79–7.33)	 < 0.01	
1 month	6.44 (± 0.74, 6.26–6.62)	7.04 (± 0.65, 6.77–7.31)	 < 0.01	
3 months	6.56 (± 0.79, 6.38–6.64)	6.98 (± 0.82, 6.64–7.32)	 < 0.05	
6 months	6.70 (± 0.80, 6.52–6.88)	7.05 (± 0.66, 6.78–7.32)	 < 0.05	
12 months	6.78 (± 0.80, 6.60–6.98)	7.04 (± 0.67, 6.77–7.31)	0.14	
Session	Group 3 (control)	
	Start	12 months		
	7.93 (± 0.42, 7.76–8.10)	7.92 (± 0.40, 7.76–8.08)	0.84	

Table 5 Comparison of mean posterior corneal radius (mm) values (± SD, 95% CI limits) between groups 1 and 2, and in group 3 between the start and 12 months

Session	Group 1 (treated)	Group 2 (untreated)	p	
Start	4.81 (± 0.65, 4.66–4.96)	5.35 (± 0.66, 5.08–5.62)	 < 0.01	
1 month	4.88 (± 0.77, 4.70–5.06)	5.31 (± 0.65, 5.04–5.58)	 < 0.01	
3 months	4.80 (± 0.66, 4.65–4.95)	5.32 (± 0.65, 5.05–5.59)	 < 0.01	
6 months	4.78 (± 0.67, 4.63–4.93)	5.32 (± 0.65, 5.05–5.59)	 < 0.01	
12 months	4.74 (± 0.64, 4.59–4.88)	5.32 (± 0.68, 5.04–5.60)	 < 0.01	
Session	Group 3 (control)	
	Start	12 months		
	6.51 (± 0.78, 6.20–6.82)	6.39 (± 0.37, 6.24–6.54)	0.42	

Table 6 Correlations (r2) between corneal optical density values for the anterior apical (0–2 ant) layer, thinnest corneal thickness (TCT), anterior (ARC) and posterior (PRC) corneal radii of curvature, ARC/PRC ratio, logMAR corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) values at the start of the study and CDVA at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months

	1 month	3 months	6 months	12 months	
Group 1 (treated)					
 0–2 ant	0.221	0.186	0.184	0.126	
 TCT	0.154	0.246	0.267	0.322	
 ARC	0.474	0.536	0.532	0.505	
 PRC	0.465	0.495	0.482	0.467	
 ARC/PRC	0.191	0.160	0.135	0.162	
 CDVA start	0.548	0.586	0.574	0.566	
Group 2 (untreated)	
 0–2 ant	ns	0.225	ns	ns	
 TCT	ns	ns	ns	ns	
 ARC	0.515	0.436	0.537	0.444	
 PRC	0.533	0.482	0.531	0.411	
 ARC/PRC	0.397	0.281	0.372	0.221	
 CDVA start	0.817	0.635	0.850	0.748	
All values were significant (p < 0.01) except those entered as ns (p > 0.05)

Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (CDVA)

In group 1 at 6 months, the CDVA had improved in 76 eyes and reduced in 1, and by 12 months the CDVA had improved in all 77 cases.

Table 1 shows that, compared with group 2, that CDVA was lower in group 1 at preop, 1 and 3 months postop, but not at 6 and 12 months postop. Compared with group 3, CDVA was lower in group 1 at pre- and 12 months postop. Over the year, CDVA significantly improved in group 1 (Friedman test, X2r = 200.4, n = 77, p < 0.01), but not in groups 2 (p = 0.60) and 3 (Wilcoxon signed-rank test p = 1.00).

Corneal Optical Density (COD)

In Table 2, the differences between groups 1 and 2 were significant at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months for all descriptors of COD (unpaired t-test, p < 0.01) but not at the start of the study. Similarly, differences between groups 1 and 3 were significant at 12 months (p < 0.01) but not at the start of the study except for the “0-2ant” descriptor of COD, which was higher in group 1. Apparent differences between groups 2 and 3 at the start and 12 months were not significant (p > 0.05).

In group 1, changes in all COD descriptors were significant over the entire period and after excluding the pre-CXL values (one-way ANOVA for repeat measures, p < 0.01). The post hoc Tukey test revealed that the difference in the results obtained at preop and 12 months after CXL were significant for all descriptors of COD (p < 0.05). In group 2, the COD descriptors “0–2 ant,” “0–2 cent,” “2–6 ant,” “2–6 cent,” and “tot ant” significantly reduced (one-way ANOVA for repeat measures, p < 0.01) over 12 months. In group 3, mean COD reduced (paired t-test, p < 0.05) except for “tot cent” (p > 0.05) and “tot” (p > 0.05).

At 12-months postop, the change in “2–6 cent” (r2 = 0.131), “tot ant” (r2 = 0.122), “tot cent” (r2 = 0.133), and “tot” (r2 = 0.129) descriptors in group 1 were significantly linked to the corresponding preop values. In group 2, the change in the “tot ant” (r2 = 0.261) descriptor, and in group 3 the change in the “0–2 ant” (r2 = 0.271) and “2–6 ant” (r2 = 0.246) descriptors, were significantly linked to the corresponding values at the start of the study.

Thinnest Corneal Thickness (TCT)

Table 3 shows that the intergroup differences in the mean TCT values were always significant. In group 1, the decrease in mean TCT after CXL was significant (one-way ANOVA for repeat measures, F = 45.47, p < 0.01). The post hoc Tukey test revealed that the apparent differences in mean TCT between 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postop pairings were not significant (p > 0.05). In groups 2 and 3, apparent changes in mean TCT were not significant (p > 0.05). In each of the three groups, there was no significant correlation between the change in the TCT and the TCT value at the start of the study (p > 0.05).

Anterior Corneal Radius (ARC)

Table 4 shows that the intergroup differences in the mean ARC values were always significant except between groups 1 and 2 at 12 months. In group 1, the initial decrease then gradual increase in mean ARC after CXL was significant (one-way ANOVA for repeat measures, F = 28.1, p < 0.01). The post hoc Tukey test revealed the apparent differences in mean ARC between 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postop pairings were not significant (p > 0.05). In groups 2 and 3, apparent changes in mean ARC values were not significant (p > 0.05). In each of the three groups, there was no significant correlation between the change in the ARC and the ARC value at the start of the study (p > 0.05).

Posterior Corneal Radius (PRC)

Table 5 shows that the intergroup differences in the mean PRC values were always significant. In group 1, the initial increase and gradual decrease in mean PRC after CXL was significant (one-way ANOVA for repeat measures, F = 5.28, p < 0.01). The post hoc Tukey test revealed that the apparent differences in mean PRC between 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postop pairings were not significant (p > 0.05). In groups 2 and 3, apparent changes in mean PRC were not significant (p > 0.05). In each of the three groups, there was no significant correlation between the change in the PRC and the PRC value at the start of the study (p > 0.05).

Associations between COD, TCT, ARC, PRC, ARC/PRC Ratio, and CDVA Values at the Start of the Study and CDVA at Postop

Linear regression revealed some significant associations (p < 0.01) in groups 1 and 2, which are listed in Table 6. Furthermore, in group 2, the CDVA at all sessions correlated with the ARC, PRC, and ARC/PRC ratio at the start of the study. The r2 values at the start and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were 0.285, 0.515, 0.436, 0.537, and 0.444 for ARC, 0.323, 0.533, 0.482, 0.531, and 0.411 for PRC, and 0.336, 0.397, 0.281, 0.372, and 0.221 for the ARC/PRC ratio. Table 6 shows that, in group 1, the correlations with CDVA were consistently higher with ARC and PRC in comparison with the ARC/PRC ratio. Thus, ARC and PRC could be considered as separate factors in subsequent analysis.

Multiple linear regression analysis revealed significant associations (p < 0.01) between postop CDVA (y) preop values and the covariates in Table 6. The key results of this analysis are listed in Table 7. The variance inflation factors (VIFs) for ARC and PRC were consistently above 15, indicating there may be a multicollinearity problem when ARC and PRC are considered as independent variables. The VIF for x1, x2, and x5 were less than 1.2, and the VIF for x6 was below 2.1. The likelihood of a multicollinearity problem affecting the estimation of postop CDVA is reduced by limiting the inclusion to just x1, x2, x5, and x6 in any predictive model. Table 7 Least-squares expressions between logMAR corrected distance visual acuity (y), preop corneal optical density values for the anterior apical layer (x1), thinnest corneal thickness (x2), anterior (x3) and posterior (x4) corneal radii of curvature, x3/x4 ratio (x5), and preop logMAR corrected distance visual acuity (x6) at 6 and 12 months (m) postop

	Least-squares expressions	Mean	LoA	
A	6m	y = 1.195 + 0.008x1 – 0.00026x2 – 0.213x3 + 0.064x4 (r2 = 0.563). [Eq. 1]	0.17 (± 0.13, 0.14–0.20)	 ± 0.23	
	12m	y = 1.294 + 0.004x1 – 0.0008x2 – 0.118x3 – 0.013x4 (r2 = 0.533). [Eq. 2]	0.14 (± 0.121, 0.02–0.05)	 ± 0.22	
B	6m	y = 0.684 + 0.002x1 + 0.0001x2 – 0.184x3 + 0.098x4 + 0.280x6 (r2 = 0.656). [Eq. 3]	0.16 (± 0.131,0.13–0.19)	 ± 0.20	
12m	y = 0.781 – 0.002x1 – 0.0005x2 – 0.089x3 + 0.021x4 + 0.281x6 (r2 = 0.637). [Eq. 4]	0.14 (± 0.131,0.11–0.17)	 ± 0.19	
C	6m	y = 0.012x1 – 0.002x2 + 0.735x5 – 0.190 (r2 = 0.397). [Eq. 5]	0.15 (± 0.11, 0.13–0.18)	 ± 0.27	
12m	y = 0.006x1 – 0.002x2 + 0.852x5 – 0.167 (r2 = 0.430). [Eq. 6]	0.20 (± 0.10, 0.18–0.23)	 ± 0.24	
D	6m	y = 0.165 + 0.003x1- 0.00071x2 + 0.096x5 + 0.377x6 (r2 = 0.592). [Eq. 7]	0.18 (± 0.14, 0.15–0.21)	 ± 0.22	
12m	y = 0.153 – 0.002x1 – 0.001x2 + 0.096x5 + 0.339x6 (r2 = 0.607). [Eq. 8]	0.16 (± 0.13, 0.13–0.19)	 ± 0.20	
A = for x1, x2, x3, x4. B = for x1, x2, x3, x4 and x6. C = for x1, x2, x5. D = for x1, x2, x5 and x6

Mean (± SD, 95% CI limits) predicted values and limits of agreement (LoA) between the predicted and actual CDVA values are shown

Associations between Predicted and Actual CDVA following CXL

Table 7 presents the predicted mean (± SD, 95% CI limits) CDVA values and the limits of agreement (± 1.96 SD) between the predicted and actual CDVA at 6 and 12 months postop. The actual mean CDVA values were 0.17 (± 0.18, 0.13–0.21) and 0.14 (± 0.17, 0.10–0.18). The differences in the mean predicted values were not significant at 6 months (one-way ANOVA, p > 0.05), but were significant at 12 months (p = 4.765, p = 0.003). The limits of agreement (LoA) were narrower when preop CDVA values were included in the predictions. Figures 1 and 2 compare the predicted values, according to Eqs. 2 and 4, with the difference between the predicted and actual CDVA values. The respective mean (± SD, 95% CI limits) differences between the predicted and actual CDVA values were −0.03 (± 0.19, –0.08 to 0.12) and 0.00 (± 0.10, –0.02 to 0.03).Fig. 1 Differences between predicted and actual logMAR corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) values at 12 months postop. The predicted values were computed by inputting objective measurements from the corneas at preop into Eq. 2. The solid black lines are the corresponding limits of agreement between the predicted and actual values

Fig. 2 Differences between predicted and actual logMAR corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) values at 12 months postop. The predicted values were computed by inputting objective measurements from the cornea and CDVA at preop into Eq. 4. The solid black lines are the corresponding limits of agreement between the predicted and actual values

Discussion

It has been reported that 3% of eyes lose two or more lines of acuity by 12 months after CXL [28]. Just one eye in our cohort of 77 had reduced CDVA at 6 months, which was resolved by 12 months postop. In keeping with most studies, CDVA tended to improve after the first month following CXL [2–4, 9, 29]. However, there have been reports of CDVA reducing by 1 month [16] or remaining unchanged by 3 months after CXL [14]. Some have claimed that, the poorer the pre-CXL CDVA, the more significant the improvement in CDVA after CXL [5, 9]. The data shown in Fig. 3 support this assertion. However, there is a tendency for the improvement in CDVA to become less predictable when the pre-CXL CDVA is worse than 0.4. Subtle variations in treatment delivery and patient-specific factors cannot be ruled out as potential sources leading to differing outcomes and increased divergence when the pre-CXL CDVA is worse than 0.4.Fig. 3 LogMAR corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) at pre- and 12 months postop. The least-squares line is described by y = 0.42x – 0.02 (r2 = 0.566, n = 77, p  < 0.01). The dotted lines represent the borders of 95% confidence limits

In keeping with previous findings, all measured descriptors of COD increased after CXL [6, 9–12, 30–32]. There is some controversy regarding COD recovery after CXL. Reports claim that COD values return to baseline 12 months after CXL [13, 15, 31, 32], while others claim that COD remains above baseline at 12 months [12, 14]. Assessing COD in different zones of the cornea revealed that the effect of CXL was not uniform, and none of the COD indicators returned to baseline values by 12 months. Some COD indicators were reduced slightly in the untreated groups. Ideally, there should be no change in a control group, but Table 2 reveals that these reductions were small compared with the substantial increases recorded in the treated group.

Nemeth et al. proposed a method to ameliorate the Pentacam-generated COD values by quantifying COD in greyscale values/corneal volume units [19]. However, the subtlety of their correction is not expected to impact the overall outcomes of our study. Changes in four of the seven COD indicators correlated with the preoperative values, so the treatment associated with the preoperative status influences the postoperative COD. Increasing corneal turbidity is expected to impact on the image-forming properties of the eye and vision [23, 24]. Increasing COD should have a deleterious effect on vision, and the opposite should occur when COD is reduced. This theory is a reasonable explanation for the gradual improvement in CDVA when the COD values tended to fall between 1 and 12 months postop, along with other factors such as reorganization of corneal architecture and stiffness. However, this does not account for the improvement in CDVA with a simultaneous COD increase observed at 3 months. The COD estimated by Pentacam is based on the proportion of incident rays backscattered out of the eye. It is assumed that this backscatter is a marker of the forward scatter of rays traversing toward the retina, and the wavelengths of these rays represent those sensitive to the retinal receptors. Forward light scatter reduces contrast sensitivity and increases glare sensitivity, but not necessarily high contrast acuity [20, 33].

The increase in COD may affect visual performance, but any undesirable impact on CDVA appears to be mitigated by the concurrent effects of changes in TCT and corneal shape (ARC and PRC).

The mean TCT was reduced by 1 month, remained stable in the untreated control groups, and this fall in thickness supports previous findings [34, 35]. Mean TCT remained stable between 1 and 12 months postop, while COD continued to reduce and CDVA continued to improve. The cornea is still undergoing biophysical changes, but these are not affecting the lowest value of corneal thickness. The lack of any correlation between TCT before treatment and change in TCT following treatment shows that the change in TCT cannot be predicted on a case-by-case basis, even though mean TCT fell by an average of 30 µm.

Tables 4 and 5 show that ARC and PRC changed in the treated group, remaining stable in the control groups. The change in ARC was an initial reduction followed by a gradual increase, while the change in PRC was an initial increase followed by a reduction over the postop period. This gradual flattening of the cone after the first month is in keeping with previous reports [1, 36–39]. Our group had previously reported that the ARC/PRC ratio at preop was a convenient amalgamation associated with postop CDVA [28]. However, Table 6 shows that, in the current study, the individual preop ARC and PRC values have more powerful correlations with CDVA at postop compared with the preop ARC/PRC ratio. For the CDVA at 12 months postop, the respective r2 values were 0.505, 0.467, and 0.162, suggesting that each factor is likely to correctly estimate CDVA in 51%, 47%, and 16% of cases. Interestingly, in the untreated cases (group 2), the corresponding r2 values can also be used to correctly estimate CDVA at 1 year later in up to 44% of cases. Table 6 shows that the correlations (r2) between pre- and postop CDVA were 0.574 and 0.566 at 6 and 12 months postop. The r2 values of Eqs. 1 and 2 in Table 7 were 0.563 and 0.533 when the preop TCT and COD (0-2ant) values were included in the analysis with preop ARC and PRC values. This implies that using objective measurements taken from the preop cornea to predict CDVA does not provide an advantage above the prediction according to the preop CDVA. Nevertheless, Eqs. 1 and 2 provide an objective value, supplanting any guesswork when the preop CDVA is unreliable or cannot be measured.

Table 7 shows that the r2 values increased after including preop COD (0-2ant), TCT, ARC and PRC values alongside the preop CDVA in the estimation of postop CDVA. The r2 values of Eqs. 4 and 8 indicate that CDVA can be correctly predicted in 64% and 61% of cases at 12 months postop. These figures must be viewed with caution as erroneous conclusions could occur if problems associated with multicollinearity are not considered. The variance inflation factors (VIFs) for ARC and PRC were greater than 15; such high values are generally interpreted as indicative of considerable multicollinearity and should not be considered as independent variables [40–42]. Furthermore, the differences in mean CDVA values estimated using Eqs. 2, 4, 6, and 8 were significant. The VIF values for COD (0-2ant), TCT, ARC/PRC ratio, and preop CDVA were all below 2.1. Such low values suggest that multicollinearity can be interpreted as not important when these factors are used to estimate CDVA.

Therefore, according to strict statistical practice, the predictions according to Eqs. 5 and 6 supersede those of Eqs. 1 and 2, and Eqs. 7 and 8 supersede Eqs. 3 and 4. However, there is little variation in the limits of agreement (LoA) values associated with Eqs. 1–8. Differences between the predictive models may be statistically significant, but the predictions resulting from these expressions are within clinically acceptable boundaries.

In many countries, the legal requirements for driving include a CDVA of no worse than 0.3 [43]. Turning to Figs. 1 and 2, the limits of agreement between the predicted and actual CDVA values are equivalent to ± 2 lines on an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) acuity chart. Therefore, the chances of achieving a CDVA of 0.30 or better by 12 months postop could be 95% when the predicted CDVA is 0.1 or better. How does this compare with an estimate based just on preop CDVA? Figure 3 compares the actual pre- and postop CDVA values at 12 months.

The CDVA improved to 0.30 or better when the preop CDVA was no worse than 0.40.

Figure 4 shows the limits of agreement between the actual postop CDVA values and the values predicted according to just the preop CDVA. The limits of agreement in Fig. 4 are indistinguishable compared with those shown in Fig. 1. The likely error in the estimation of CDVA at 1 year postop according to objective measurements of the preop cornea is on par with the error according to just preop subjective CDVA. Other models have been advanced for predicting postop CDVA based on preop CDVA, corneal curvature and COD values [44]. We have not found any other reports predicting postop CDVA based solely on objective measurements of preop COD (“0-2ant”), TCT, ARC, and PRC.Fig. 4 Differences between predicted and actual logMAR corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) values at 12 months postop. The predicted values were computed using the equation describing the least-squares line in Fig. 3. The solid black lines are the corresponding limits of agreement between the predicted and actual values

Limitations of the Study

The outcomes of this study are limited by the number of cases, the CXL protocol used, the follow-up period, and possibly genetic factors of the patients enrolled. Longer-term studies involving a broader spectrum of patients in different territories, treated with other CXL protocols, including other aspects of acuity should be conducted to determine the real value of the models uncovered in this study. Future studies may identify other key factors that should be considered for estimating CDVA after CXL.

Conclusions

CXL increases the turbidity, reduces the thickness, flattens the front, and steepens the back surface of the cornea. The preoperative values of these factors are correlated with the CDVA at 6 and 12 months postop. Analysis of data obtained from 77 cases shows that CXL improves CDVA to better than 0.20 in most cases and that there is a 95% chance the CDVA will be 0.30 or better when the preop CDVA is no worse than 0.40. Automated objective measurements of the cornea at the preoperative stage hold the potential to rapidly estimate the postop CDVA that could be achieved by CXL when the assessment of preop acuity is unreliable.

Acknowledgements

We thank the patients for their participation, compliance, and diligence during this study.

Author Contribution

Each author made a significant contribution to the work reported. Fanka Gilevska, Alma Biscevic, Maja Bohac, and Sudi Patel contributed equally to the concept and design of the study. Fanka Gilevska, Alma Biscevic, and Maja Bohac contributed equally to patient selection, surgery, and acquisition of clinical data. Fanka Gilevska, Alma Biscevic, Maja Bohac, and Sudi Patel contributed equally to interpretation, statistical analysis, and drafting the manuscript, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding

No funding or sponsorship was received for this study or publication of this article.

Data Availability

For reasons of security, datasets collected and analyzed for this paper are available from the corresponding author on receiving a reasonable request.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

Fanka Gilevska, Alma Biscevic, Maja Bohac, and Sudi Patel declare that there are no conflicts of interest with this submission. All four authors have no relevant financial disclosures. Sudi Patel is an Advisory Board member of Ophthalmology and Therapy. Sudi Patel was not involved in the selection of peer reviewers for the manuscript nor any of the subsequent editorial decisions.

Ethical Approval

The Ethics Committees at the hospitals Sistina Oftalmologija in Skopje and Svjetlost in Zagreb, and the University of Zagreb’s School of Medicine approved the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and its later amendments. All patients were fully informed about the procedures, risks, and benefits and provided signed informed consent. All patients and subjects were examined, operated where appropriate, and followed up by the same clinical team. The criteria for selecting cases for cross-linking were set by the overseeing Ethics Committee of the University of Zagreb, School of Medicine (reference “DR.SC.-01A,” titled “Impact of the postoperative corneal density on the shape of the cornea after corneal cross linking procedure”). The study was registered with Clinical Trials Protocol Registration and Results System (ref: NCT06522789).
==== Refs
References

1. Wittig-Silva C Chan E Islam FM A randomized, controlled trial of corneal collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconus: three-year results Ophthalmology 2014 121 4 812 821 24393351
Wittig-Silva C, Chan E, Islam FM, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of corneal collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconus: three-year results. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(4):812–21.24393351
2. Raiskup-Wolf F Hoyer A Spoerl E Pillunat LE Collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and ultraviolet-A light in keratoconus: long-term results J Cataract Refract Surg 2008 34 5 796 801 18471635
Raiskup-Wolf F, Hoyer A, Spoerl E, Pillunat LE. Collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and ultraviolet-A light in keratoconus: long-term results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(5):796–801.18471635
3. Caporossi A Mazzotta C Baiocchi S Caporossi T Long-term results of riboflavin ultraviolet a corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus in Italy: the Siena eye cross study Am J Ophthalmol 2010 149 4 585 593 20138607
Caporossi A, Mazzotta C, Baiocchi S, Caporossi T. Long-term results of riboflavin ultraviolet a corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus in Italy: the Siena eye cross study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149(4):585–93.20138607
4. Hersh PS Greenstein SA Fry KL Corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: One-year results J Cataract Refract Surg 2011 37 1 149 160 21183110
Hersh PS, Greenstein SA, Fry KL. Corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: One-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(1):149–60.21183110
5. Godefrooij DA Boom K Soeters N Imhof SM Wisse RP Predictors for treatment outcomes after corneal cross-linking for keratoconus: a validation study Int Ophthalmol 2017 37 2 341 348 27221267
Godefrooij DA, Boom K, Soeters N, Imhof SM, Wisse RP. Predictors for treatment outcomes after corneal cross-linking for keratoconus: a validation study. Int Ophthalmol. 2017;37(2):341–8.27221267
6. Greenstein SA Fry KL Bhatt J Hersh PS Natural history of corneal haze after collagen cross-linking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: Scheimpflug and biomicroscopic analysis J Cataract Refract Surg 2010 36 12 2105 2114 21111314
Greenstein SA, Fry KL, Bhatt J, Hersh PS. Natural history of corneal haze after collagen cross-linking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: Scheimpflug and biomicroscopic analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(12):2105–14.21111314
7. Toprak I Yaylalı V Yildirim C Factors affecting outcomes of corneal collagen cross-linking treatment Eye (Lond) 2014 28 1 41 46 24136568
Toprak I, Yaylalı V, Yildirim C. Factors affecting outcomes of corneal collagen cross-linking treatment. Eye (Lond). 2014;28(1):41–6.24136568
8. Di Y Wang J Li Y Jiang Y Comparison of standard and transepithelial corneal cross-linking for the treatment of keratoconus: A Meta-analysis J Ophthalmol 2021 2021 6679770 33575037
Di Y, Wang J, Li Y, Jiang Y. Comparison of standard and transepithelial corneal cross-linking for the treatment of keratoconus: A Meta-analysis. J Ophthalmol. 2021;2021:6679770.33575037
9. Badawi AE Abou Samra WA El Ghafar AA Predictive factors of the standard cross-linking outcomes in adult keratoconus: one-year follow-up J Ophthalmol 2017 2017 4109208 28951783
Badawi AE, Abou Samra WA, El Ghafar AA. Predictive factors of the standard cross-linking outcomes in adult keratoconus: one-year follow-up. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:4109208.28951783
10. Gutiérrez R Lopez I Villa-Collar C González-Méijome JM Corneal transparency after cross-linking for keratoconus: 1-year follow-up J Refract Surg 2012 28 11 781 786 23347372
Gutiérrez R, Lopez I, Villa-Collar C, González-Méijome JM. Corneal transparency after cross-linking for keratoconus: 1-year follow-up. J Refract Surg. 2012;28(11):781–6.23347372
11. Pircher N Pachala M Prager F Pieh S Schmidinger G Changes in straylight and densitometry values after corneal collagen cross-linking J Cataract Refract Surg 2015 41 5 1038 1043 25953473
Pircher N, Pachala M, Prager F, Pieh S, Schmidinger G. Changes in straylight and densitometry values after corneal collagen cross-linking. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(5):1038–43.25953473
12. Alnawaiseh M Rosentreter A Eveslage M Eter N Zumhagen L Changes in corneal transparency after cross-linking for progressive keratoconus: Long-term follow-up J Refract Surg 2015 31 9 614 618 26352567
Alnawaiseh M, Rosentreter A, Eveslage M, Eter N, Zumhagen L. Changes in corneal transparency after cross-linking for progressive keratoconus: Long-term follow-up. J Refract Surg. 2015;31(9):614–8.26352567
13. Kim BZ Jordan CA McGhee CN Patel DV Natural history of corneal haze after corneal collagen cross-linking in keratoconus using Scheimpflug analysis J Cataract Refract Surg 2016 42 7 1053 1059 27492105
Kim BZ, Jordan CA, McGhee CN, Patel DV. Natural history of corneal haze after corneal collagen cross-linking in keratoconus using Scheimpflug analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(7):1053–9.27492105
14. Shen Y Jian W Sun L One-Year follow-Up of changes in corneal densitometry after accelerated (45 mW/cm2) transepithelial corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus: a retrospective study Cornea 2016 35 11 1434 1440 27429089
Shen Y, Jian W, Sun L, et al. One-Year follow-Up of changes in corneal densitometry after accelerated (45 mW/cm2) transepithelial corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus: a retrospective study. Cornea. 2016;35(11):1434–40.27429089
15. Alzahrani K Mofty H Lin EY Corneal imaging and densitometry measurements in juvenile and adult keratoconus patients to evaluate disease progression and treatment effects after corneal cross-linking Clin Optom (Auckl) 2019 11 173 180 31920417
Alzahrani K, Mofty H, Lin EY, et al. Corneal imaging and densitometry measurements in juvenile and adult keratoconus patients to evaluate disease progression and treatment effects after corneal cross-linking. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2019;11:173–80.31920417
16. Csorba A Kránitz K Dormán P Factors influencing haze formation and corneal flattening, and the impact of haze on visual acuity after conventional collagen cross-linking: a 12-month retrospective study BMC Ophthalmol 2021 21 1 306 34425775
Csorba A, Kránitz K, Dormán P, et al. Factors influencing haze formation and corneal flattening, and the impact of haze on visual acuity after conventional collagen cross-linking: a 12-month retrospective study. BMC Ophthalmol. 2021;21(1):306.34425775
17. Seiler T Hafezi F Corneal cross-linking-induced stromal demarcation line Cornea 2006 25 9 1057 1059 17133053
Seiler T, Hafezi F. Corneal cross-linking-induced stromal demarcation line. Cornea. 2006;25(9):1057–9.17133053
18. Mahdavi Fard A Daei Sorkhabi R Khazaei M Nader ND The effects of collagen cross-linking on corneal density: a comparison between accelerated and conventional methods Int Ophthalmol 2019 39 7 1559 1566 29931571
Mahdavi Fard A, Daei Sorkhabi R, Khazaei M, Nader ND. The effects of collagen cross-linking on corneal density: a comparison between accelerated and conventional methods. Int Ophthalmol. 2019;39(7):1559–66.29931571
19. Nemeth G Hassan J Modis L Jr Hassan Z Long-term changes in backscattered light measurements in keratoconus corneas treated with collagen cross-linking Curr Eye Res 2018 43 1 18 26 29111836
Nemeth G, Hassan J, Modis L Jr, Hassan Z. Long-term changes in backscattered light measurements in keratoconus corneas treated with collagen cross-linking. Curr Eye Res. 2018;43(1):18–26.29111836
20. Spadea L Maraone G Verboschi F Vingolo EM Tognetto D Effect of corneal light scatter on vision: A review of the literature Int J Ophthalmol 2016 9 3 459 464 27158621
Spadea L, Maraone G, Verboschi F, Vingolo EM, Tognetto D. Effect of corneal light scatter on vision: A review of the literature. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016;9(3):459–64.27158621
21. Shah K Eghrari AO Vanner EA O'Brien TP Koo EH Scheimpflug corneal densitometry values and severity of guttae in relation to visual acuity in Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy Cornea 2022 41 6 692 698 35175018
Shah K, Eghrari AO, Vanner EA, O’Brien TP, Koo EH. Scheimpflug corneal densitometry values and severity of guttae in relation to visual acuity in Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy. Cornea. 2022;41(6):692–8.35175018
22. Lohmann CP Gartry DS Muir MK Timberlake GT Fitzke FW Marshall J Corneal haze after excimer laser refractive surgery: objective measurements and functional implications Eur J Ophthalmol 1991 1 4 173 180 1821211
Lohmann CP, Gartry DS, Muir MK, Timberlake GT, Fitzke FW, Marshall J. Corneal haze after excimer laser refractive surgery: objective measurements and functional implications. Eur J Ophthalmol. 1991;1(4):173–80.1821211
23. Lohmann CP Gartry DS Muir MK Timberlake G Fitzke F Marshall J Corneal opacity after photorefractive keratectomy with an excimer laser. Cause, objective measurement and functional consequences Ophthalmologe 1992 89 6 498 504 1486267
Lohmann CP, Gartry DS, Muir MK, Timberlake G, Fitzke F, Marshall J. Corneal opacity after photorefractive keratectomy with an excimer laser. Cause, objective measurement and functional consequences. Ophthalmologe. 1992;89(6):498–504.1486267
24. Moraes RLB Ghanem RC Ghanem VC Santhiago MR Haze and visual acuity loss after sequential photorefractive keratectomy and corneal cross-linking for keratoconus J Refract Surg 2019 35 2 109 114 30742225
Moraes RLB, Ghanem RC, Ghanem VC, Santhiago MR. Haze and visual acuity loss after sequential photorefractive keratectomy and corneal cross-linking for keratoconus. J Refract Surg. 2019;35(2):109–14.30742225
25. Böhm M Shajari M Remy M Kohnen T Corneal densitometry after accelerated corneal collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconus Int Ophthalmol 2019 39 4 765 775 29582259
Böhm M, Shajari M, Remy M, Kohnen T. Corneal densitometry after accelerated corneal collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconus. Int Ophthalmol. 2019;39(4):765–75.29582259
26. Greenstein SA Shah VP Fry KL Hersh PS Corneal thickness changes after corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: one-year results J Cataract Refract Surg 2011 37 4 691 700 21420594
Greenstein SA, Shah VP, Fry KL, Hersh PS. Corneal thickness changes after corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: one-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(4):691–700.21420594
27. Enders P Holtick U Schaub F Corneal densitometry for quantification of corneal deposits in monoclonal ga mmopathies Cornea 2017 36 4 470 475 27841786
Enders P, Holtick U, Schaub F, et al. Corneal densitometry for quantification of corneal deposits in monoclonal ga mmopathies. Cornea. 2017;36(4):470–5.27841786
28. Gilevska F Biscevic A Popovic Suic S Bohac M Patel S Are changes in visual acuity and astigmatism after corneal cross-linking (CXL) in keratoconus predictable? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2021 259 8 2259 2268 33885984
Gilevska F, Biscevic A, Popovic Suic S, Bohac M, Patel S. Are changes in visual acuity and astigmatism after corneal cross-linking (CXL) in keratoconus predictable? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;259(8):2259–68.33885984
29. Kobashi H Rong SS Corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus: systematic review Biomed Res Int 2017 2017 8145651 28691035
Kobashi H, Rong SS. Corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus: systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:8145651.28691035
30. Huang J Shen Y Jian W Two-year topographic and densitometric outcomes of accelerated (45 mW/cm(2)) transepithelial corneal cross-linking for keratoconus: a case-control study BMC Ophthalmol 2018 18 1 337 30587181
Huang J, Shen Y, Jian W, et al. Two-year topographic and densitometric outcomes of accelerated (45 mW/cm(2)) transepithelial corneal cross-linking for keratoconus: a case-control study. BMC Ophthalmol. 2018;18(1):337.30587181
31. Akkaya Turhan S Toker E Changes in corneal density after accelerated corneal collagen cross-linking with different irradiation intensities and energy exposures: 1-year follow-up Cornea 2017 36 11 1331 1335 28872519
Akkaya Turhan S, Toker E. Changes in corneal density after accelerated corneal collagen cross-linking with different irradiation intensities and energy exposures: 1-year follow-up. Cornea. 2017;36(11):1331–5.28872519
32. Lai JM Greenstein SA Gelles JD Hersh PS Corneal haze after transepithelial collagen cross-linking for keratoconus: a Scheimpflug densitometry analysis Cornea 2020 39 9 1117 1121 32282356
Lai JM, Greenstein SA, Gelles JD, Hersh PS. Corneal haze after transepithelial collagen cross-linking for keratoconus: a Scheimpflug densitometry analysis. Cornea. 2020;39(9):1117–21.32282356
33. Freegard TJ The physical basis of transparency of the normal cornea Eye (Lond) 1997 11 4 465 471 9425408
Freegard TJ. The physical basis of transparency of the normal cornea. Eye (Lond). 1997;11(4):465–71.9425408
34. Pjano MA Biscevic A Grisevic S Gabric I Salkica AS Ziga N Pachymetry and elevation back map changes in keratoconus patients after cross-linking procedure Med Arch 2020 74 2 105 108 32577050
Pjano MA, Biscevic A, Grisevic S, Gabric I, Salkica AS, Ziga N. Pachymetry and elevation back map changes in keratoconus patients after cross-linking procedure. Med Arch. 2020;74(2):105–8.32577050
35. Kim TG Kim KY Han JB Jin KH The long-term clinical outcome after corneal collagen cross-linking in Korean patients with progressive keratoconus Korean J Ophthalmol 2016 30 5 326 334 27729752
Kim TG, Kim KY, Han JB, Jin KH. The long-term clinical outcome after corneal collagen cross-linking in Korean patients with progressive keratoconus. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2016;30(5):326–34.27729752
36. Raiskup F Theuring A Pillunat LE Spoerl E Corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and ultraviolet-A light in progressive keratoconus: Ten-year results J Cataract Refract Surg 2015 41 1 41 46 25532633
Raiskup F, Theuring A, Pillunat LE, Spoerl E. Corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and ultraviolet-A light in progressive keratoconus: Ten-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(1):41–6.25532633
37. De Bernardo M Capasso L Lanza M Long-term results of corneal collagen cross-linking for progressive keratoconus J Optom 2015 8 3 180 186 26105541
De Bernardo M, Capasso L, Lanza M, et al. Long-term results of corneal collagen cross-linking for progressive keratoconus. J Optom. 2015;8(3):180–6.26105541
38. Khattak A Nakhli FR Cheema HR Corneal collagen cross-linking for progressive keratoconus in Saudi Arabia: one-year controlled clinical trial analysis Saudi J Ophthalmol 2015 29 4 249 254 26586973
Khattak A, Nakhli FR, Cheema HR. Corneal collagen cross-linking for progressive keratoconus in Saudi Arabia: one-year controlled clinical trial analysis. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2015;29(4):249–54.26586973
39. Maier P Reinhard T Kohlhaas M Corneal collagen cross-linking in the stabilization of Keratoconus Dtsch Arztebl Int 2019 116 11 184 190 31014449
Maier P, Reinhard T, Kohlhaas M. Corneal collagen cross-linking in the stabilization of Keratoconus. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2019;116(11):184–90.31014449
40. Allison P Multiple regression: a primer 1999 Thousand Oaks Pine Forge Press 142
Allison P. Multiple regression: a primer. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press; 1999. p. 142.
41. Allison, P. When can you safely ignore multicollinearity? Statistical Horizons Blog, 10 September. http://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity. 2012. Accessed 10 May 2024.
42. Johnston R Jones K Manley D Confounding and collinearity in regression analysis: a cautionary tale and an alternative procedure illustrated by studies of British voting behaviour Qual Quant 2018 52 4 1957 1976 29937587
Johnston R, Jones K, Manley D. Confounding and collinearity in regression analysis: a cautionary tale and an alternative procedure illustrated by studies of British voting behaviour. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1957–76.29937587
43. Almatar H Alamri S Alduhayan R Visual functions, seatbelt usage, speed, and alcohol consumption standards for driving and their impact on road traffic accidents Clin Optom (Auckl) 2023 15 225 246 37814654
Almatar H, Alamri S, Alduhayan R, et al. Visual functions, seatbelt usage, speed, and alcohol consumption standards for driving and their impact on road traffic accidents. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2023;15:225–46.37814654
44. Koc M Tekin K Tekin MI An early finding of keratoconus: Increase in corneal densitometry Cornea 2018 37 5 580 586 29384807
Koc M, Tekin K, Tekin MI, et al. An early finding of keratoconus: Increase in corneal densitometry. Cornea. 2018;37(5):580–6.29384807
