In Vivo Femtosecond Laser Machined Transepithelial Nonlinear Optical Corneal Crosslinking Compared to Ultraviolet Corneal Crosslinking

This study assessed the safety and efficacy of transepithelial crosslinking (CXL) using femtosecond (FS) laser-machined epithelial microchannels (MCs) followed by UVA CXL compared to FS laser (NLO CXL) in rabbits. The epithelium of 36 rabbits was machined to create 2- by 25-µm MCs at 400 MCs/mm2. Ey...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Translational vision science & technology 2024-10, Vol.13 (10), p.9
Hauptverfasser: Bradford, Samantha, Joshi, Rohan, Luo, Shangbang, Farrah, Emily, Xie, Yilu, Brown, Donald J, Juhasz, Tibor, Jester, James V
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 10
container_start_page 9
container_title Translational vision science & technology
container_volume 13
creator Bradford, Samantha
Joshi, Rohan
Luo, Shangbang
Farrah, Emily
Xie, Yilu
Brown, Donald J
Juhasz, Tibor
Jester, James V
description This study assessed the safety and efficacy of transepithelial crosslinking (CXL) using femtosecond (FS) laser-machined epithelial microchannels (MCs) followed by UVA CXL compared to FS laser (NLO CXL) in rabbits. The epithelium of 36 rabbits was machined to create 2- by 25-µm MCs at 400 MCs/mm2. Eyes were treated with 1% riboflavin (Rf) solution for 30 minutes, rinsed, and then crosslinked using UVA or NLO CXL. Rabbits were monitored by epithelial staining, optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging, and esthesiometry. After sacrifice at 2, 4, or 8 weeks, corneas were examined for collagen autofluorescence and immunohistochemistry. NLO CXL showed no epithelial damage compared to UVA CXL, which produced on average 23.89 ± 5.6 mm2 epithelial defects that healed by day 3. UVA CXL also produced loss of corneal sensitivity averaging 0.83 ± 0.24 cm force to elicit a blink response that persisted for 28 days and remained significantly lower than control or NLO CXL. OCT imaging detected the presence of a demarcation line only following UVA CXL but not NLO CXL. Even with improved transepithelial Rf penetration, UVA CXL resulted in severe epithelial damage, loss of corneal sensitivity, and delayed wound healing persisting for a month. When MCs were paired with NLO CXL, however, these issues were mostly negated. This suggests that MC NLO CXL can achieve a faster visual recovery without postoperative pain or risk of infection. UVA CXL is a successful procedure, but there is a need for a transepithelial protocol. The combination of MCs and NLO CXL is able to keep the benefits of UVA CXL without causing epithelial damage.
doi_str_mv 10.1167/tvst.13.10.9
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11460565</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3112861115</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c234t-5e44e842e2783413f3a1bf9d9e274c8f9f222036fd83bd194458267fe95f263</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUc9PHCEUJo1NNdZbz80cPbjbecCww8mYjbYmWz2ovRJ25uFSGRiB3aT_QP_uMtEaTeTy-H68xyMfIV-gngOIxbe8S3kObF6w_EAOKAg-o42EvVf3fXKU0u-6HNE2nItPZJ9JJhrKFwfk76WvftldqC5wyCFhF3xfrXTCWP3U3cZ67KvbqH3C0eYNOqtddRW8K4KO1fWYbVeYZYgFlxpDSkV7sP6-kMOoY-nPobpzOeqdDQ7zu-bP5KPRLuHRcz0kNxfnt8sfs9X198vl2WrWUcbzrEHOseUU6aJlHJhhGtZG9rIQvGuNNJTSmgnTt2zdg-S8aalYGJSNoYIdktOnqeN2PWDfoS9bOTVGO-j4RwVt1VvF2426DzsFwEXdiKZMOH6eEMPjFlNWg00dOqc9hm1SDIC2AgAm68mTtZv-GdG8vAO1msJTU3gK2IRlsX99vduL-X9U7B_6AZku</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3112861115</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>In Vivo Femtosecond Laser Machined Transepithelial Nonlinear Optical Corneal Crosslinking Compared to Ultraviolet Corneal Crosslinking</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Bradford, Samantha ; Joshi, Rohan ; Luo, Shangbang ; Farrah, Emily ; Xie, Yilu ; Brown, Donald J ; Juhasz, Tibor ; Jester, James V</creator><creatorcontrib>Bradford, Samantha ; Joshi, Rohan ; Luo, Shangbang ; Farrah, Emily ; Xie, Yilu ; Brown, Donald J ; Juhasz, Tibor ; Jester, James V</creatorcontrib><description>This study assessed the safety and efficacy of transepithelial crosslinking (CXL) using femtosecond (FS) laser-machined epithelial microchannels (MCs) followed by UVA CXL compared to FS laser (NLO CXL) in rabbits. The epithelium of 36 rabbits was machined to create 2- by 25-µm MCs at 400 MCs/mm2. Eyes were treated with 1% riboflavin (Rf) solution for 30 minutes, rinsed, and then crosslinked using UVA or NLO CXL. Rabbits were monitored by epithelial staining, optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging, and esthesiometry. After sacrifice at 2, 4, or 8 weeks, corneas were examined for collagen autofluorescence and immunohistochemistry. NLO CXL showed no epithelial damage compared to UVA CXL, which produced on average 23.89 ± 5.6 mm2 epithelial defects that healed by day 3. UVA CXL also produced loss of corneal sensitivity averaging 0.83 ± 0.24 cm force to elicit a blink response that persisted for 28 days and remained significantly lower than control or NLO CXL. OCT imaging detected the presence of a demarcation line only following UVA CXL but not NLO CXL. Even with improved transepithelial Rf penetration, UVA CXL resulted in severe epithelial damage, loss of corneal sensitivity, and delayed wound healing persisting for a month. When MCs were paired with NLO CXL, however, these issues were mostly negated. This suggests that MC NLO CXL can achieve a faster visual recovery without postoperative pain or risk of infection. UVA CXL is a successful procedure, but there is a need for a transepithelial protocol. The combination of MCs and NLO CXL is able to keep the benefits of UVA CXL without causing epithelial damage.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2164-2591</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2164-2591</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1167/tvst.13.10.9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39365247</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology</publisher><subject>Animals ; Collagen - metabolism ; Cornea &amp; External Disease ; Corneal Stroma - drug effects ; Corneal Stroma - metabolism ; Cross-Linking Reagents - pharmacology ; Disease Models, Animal ; Epithelium, Corneal - drug effects ; Epithelium, Corneal - metabolism ; Epithelium, Corneal - pathology ; Epithelium, Corneal - radiation effects ; Keratoconus - drug therapy ; Keratoconus - metabolism ; Keratoconus - pathology ; Photochemotherapy - methods ; Photosensitizing Agents - pharmacology ; Rabbits ; Riboflavin - pharmacology ; Tomography, Optical Coherence ; Ultraviolet Rays - adverse effects</subject><ispartof>Translational vision science &amp; technology, 2024-10, Vol.13 (10), p.9</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2024 The Authors 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c234t-5e44e842e2783413f3a1bf9d9e274c8f9f222036fd83bd194458267fe95f263</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460565/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460565/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,27923,27924,53790,53792</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39365247$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bradford, Samantha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joshi, Rohan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luo, Shangbang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farrah, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Yilu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Donald J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Juhasz, Tibor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jester, James V</creatorcontrib><title>In Vivo Femtosecond Laser Machined Transepithelial Nonlinear Optical Corneal Crosslinking Compared to Ultraviolet Corneal Crosslinking</title><title>Translational vision science &amp; technology</title><addtitle>Transl Vis Sci Technol</addtitle><description>This study assessed the safety and efficacy of transepithelial crosslinking (CXL) using femtosecond (FS) laser-machined epithelial microchannels (MCs) followed by UVA CXL compared to FS laser (NLO CXL) in rabbits. The epithelium of 36 rabbits was machined to create 2- by 25-µm MCs at 400 MCs/mm2. Eyes were treated with 1% riboflavin (Rf) solution for 30 minutes, rinsed, and then crosslinked using UVA or NLO CXL. Rabbits were monitored by epithelial staining, optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging, and esthesiometry. After sacrifice at 2, 4, or 8 weeks, corneas were examined for collagen autofluorescence and immunohistochemistry. NLO CXL showed no epithelial damage compared to UVA CXL, which produced on average 23.89 ± 5.6 mm2 epithelial defects that healed by day 3. UVA CXL also produced loss of corneal sensitivity averaging 0.83 ± 0.24 cm force to elicit a blink response that persisted for 28 days and remained significantly lower than control or NLO CXL. OCT imaging detected the presence of a demarcation line only following UVA CXL but not NLO CXL. Even with improved transepithelial Rf penetration, UVA CXL resulted in severe epithelial damage, loss of corneal sensitivity, and delayed wound healing persisting for a month. When MCs were paired with NLO CXL, however, these issues were mostly negated. This suggests that MC NLO CXL can achieve a faster visual recovery without postoperative pain or risk of infection. UVA CXL is a successful procedure, but there is a need for a transepithelial protocol. The combination of MCs and NLO CXL is able to keep the benefits of UVA CXL without causing epithelial damage.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Collagen - metabolism</subject><subject>Cornea &amp; External Disease</subject><subject>Corneal Stroma - drug effects</subject><subject>Corneal Stroma - metabolism</subject><subject>Cross-Linking Reagents - pharmacology</subject><subject>Disease Models, Animal</subject><subject>Epithelium, Corneal - drug effects</subject><subject>Epithelium, Corneal - metabolism</subject><subject>Epithelium, Corneal - pathology</subject><subject>Epithelium, Corneal - radiation effects</subject><subject>Keratoconus - drug therapy</subject><subject>Keratoconus - metabolism</subject><subject>Keratoconus - pathology</subject><subject>Photochemotherapy - methods</subject><subject>Photosensitizing Agents - pharmacology</subject><subject>Rabbits</subject><subject>Riboflavin - pharmacology</subject><subject>Tomography, Optical Coherence</subject><subject>Ultraviolet Rays - adverse effects</subject><issn>2164-2591</issn><issn>2164-2591</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNptUc9PHCEUJo1NNdZbz80cPbjbecCww8mYjbYmWz2ovRJ25uFSGRiB3aT_QP_uMtEaTeTy-H68xyMfIV-gngOIxbe8S3kObF6w_EAOKAg-o42EvVf3fXKU0u-6HNE2nItPZJ9JJhrKFwfk76WvftldqC5wyCFhF3xfrXTCWP3U3cZ67KvbqH3C0eYNOqtddRW8K4KO1fWYbVeYZYgFlxpDSkV7sP6-kMOoY-nPobpzOeqdDQ7zu-bP5KPRLuHRcz0kNxfnt8sfs9X198vl2WrWUcbzrEHOseUU6aJlHJhhGtZG9rIQvGuNNJTSmgnTt2zdg-S8aalYGJSNoYIdktOnqeN2PWDfoS9bOTVGO-j4RwVt1VvF2426DzsFwEXdiKZMOH6eEMPjFlNWg00dOqc9hm1SDIC2AgAm68mTtZv-GdG8vAO1msJTU3gK2IRlsX99vduL-X9U7B_6AZku</recordid><startdate>20241001</startdate><enddate>20241001</enddate><creator>Bradford, Samantha</creator><creator>Joshi, Rohan</creator><creator>Luo, Shangbang</creator><creator>Farrah, Emily</creator><creator>Xie, Yilu</creator><creator>Brown, Donald J</creator><creator>Juhasz, Tibor</creator><creator>Jester, James V</creator><general>The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20241001</creationdate><title>In Vivo Femtosecond Laser Machined Transepithelial Nonlinear Optical Corneal Crosslinking Compared to Ultraviolet Corneal Crosslinking</title><author>Bradford, Samantha ; Joshi, Rohan ; Luo, Shangbang ; Farrah, Emily ; Xie, Yilu ; Brown, Donald J ; Juhasz, Tibor ; Jester, James V</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c234t-5e44e842e2783413f3a1bf9d9e274c8f9f222036fd83bd194458267fe95f263</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Collagen - metabolism</topic><topic>Cornea &amp; External Disease</topic><topic>Corneal Stroma - drug effects</topic><topic>Corneal Stroma - metabolism</topic><topic>Cross-Linking Reagents - pharmacology</topic><topic>Disease Models, Animal</topic><topic>Epithelium, Corneal - drug effects</topic><topic>Epithelium, Corneal - metabolism</topic><topic>Epithelium, Corneal - pathology</topic><topic>Epithelium, Corneal - radiation effects</topic><topic>Keratoconus - drug therapy</topic><topic>Keratoconus - metabolism</topic><topic>Keratoconus - pathology</topic><topic>Photochemotherapy - methods</topic><topic>Photosensitizing Agents - pharmacology</topic><topic>Rabbits</topic><topic>Riboflavin - pharmacology</topic><topic>Tomography, Optical Coherence</topic><topic>Ultraviolet Rays - adverse effects</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bradford, Samantha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joshi, Rohan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luo, Shangbang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farrah, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Yilu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Donald J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Juhasz, Tibor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jester, James V</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Translational vision science &amp; technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bradford, Samantha</au><au>Joshi, Rohan</au><au>Luo, Shangbang</au><au>Farrah, Emily</au><au>Xie, Yilu</au><au>Brown, Donald J</au><au>Juhasz, Tibor</au><au>Jester, James V</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>In Vivo Femtosecond Laser Machined Transepithelial Nonlinear Optical Corneal Crosslinking Compared to Ultraviolet Corneal Crosslinking</atitle><jtitle>Translational vision science &amp; technology</jtitle><addtitle>Transl Vis Sci Technol</addtitle><date>2024-10-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>9</spage><pages>9-</pages><issn>2164-2591</issn><eissn>2164-2591</eissn><abstract>This study assessed the safety and efficacy of transepithelial crosslinking (CXL) using femtosecond (FS) laser-machined epithelial microchannels (MCs) followed by UVA CXL compared to FS laser (NLO CXL) in rabbits. The epithelium of 36 rabbits was machined to create 2- by 25-µm MCs at 400 MCs/mm2. Eyes were treated with 1% riboflavin (Rf) solution for 30 minutes, rinsed, and then crosslinked using UVA or NLO CXL. Rabbits were monitored by epithelial staining, optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging, and esthesiometry. After sacrifice at 2, 4, or 8 weeks, corneas were examined for collagen autofluorescence and immunohistochemistry. NLO CXL showed no epithelial damage compared to UVA CXL, which produced on average 23.89 ± 5.6 mm2 epithelial defects that healed by day 3. UVA CXL also produced loss of corneal sensitivity averaging 0.83 ± 0.24 cm force to elicit a blink response that persisted for 28 days and remained significantly lower than control or NLO CXL. OCT imaging detected the presence of a demarcation line only following UVA CXL but not NLO CXL. Even with improved transepithelial Rf penetration, UVA CXL resulted in severe epithelial damage, loss of corneal sensitivity, and delayed wound healing persisting for a month. When MCs were paired with NLO CXL, however, these issues were mostly negated. This suggests that MC NLO CXL can achieve a faster visual recovery without postoperative pain or risk of infection. UVA CXL is a successful procedure, but there is a need for a transepithelial protocol. The combination of MCs and NLO CXL is able to keep the benefits of UVA CXL without causing epithelial damage.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology</pub><pmid>39365247</pmid><doi>10.1167/tvst.13.10.9</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2164-2591
ispartof Translational vision science & technology, 2024-10, Vol.13 (10), p.9
issn 2164-2591
2164-2591
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11460565
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Animals
Collagen - metabolism
Cornea & External Disease
Corneal Stroma - drug effects
Corneal Stroma - metabolism
Cross-Linking Reagents - pharmacology
Disease Models, Animal
Epithelium, Corneal - drug effects
Epithelium, Corneal - metabolism
Epithelium, Corneal - pathology
Epithelium, Corneal - radiation effects
Keratoconus - drug therapy
Keratoconus - metabolism
Keratoconus - pathology
Photochemotherapy - methods
Photosensitizing Agents - pharmacology
Rabbits
Riboflavin - pharmacology
Tomography, Optical Coherence
Ultraviolet Rays - adverse effects
title In Vivo Femtosecond Laser Machined Transepithelial Nonlinear Optical Corneal Crosslinking Compared to Ultraviolet Corneal Crosslinking
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T20%3A23%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=In%20Vivo%20Femtosecond%20Laser%20Machined%20Transepithelial%20Nonlinear%20Optical%20Corneal%20Crosslinking%20Compared%20to%20Ultraviolet%20Corneal%20Crosslinking&rft.jtitle=Translational%20vision%20science%20&%20technology&rft.au=Bradford,%20Samantha&rft.date=2024-10-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=9&rft.pages=9-&rft.issn=2164-2591&rft.eissn=2164-2591&rft_id=info:doi/10.1167/tvst.13.10.9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E3112861115%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3112861115&rft_id=info:pmid/39365247&rfr_iscdi=true