Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Experimental trial compares biomechanical stiffening in porcine corneas using different corneal cross-linking protocols, indicating enhanced outcomes for ultra-high fluence treatment.
Purpose: To compare the biomechanical stiffening effects of a novel ultra-high fluence corneal cross-linking (CXL) protocol with conventional high-fluence CXL for extracorporeal corneal allogenic intrastromal ring segment optimization (ECO-CAIRS). Setting: ELZA Institute, Zurich, Switzerland. Design: Experimental, randomized, controlled ex vivo laboratory study using porcine corneas. No masking was applied. Methods: Eighty-four porcine corneas were divided into four groups: Group A (control), Group B (10 J/cm 2 ), Group C (30 J/cm 2 ), and Group D (60 J/cm 2 ). Following epithelial debridement, Groups B, C, and D were treated with 0.1% hypo-osmolar riboflavin. UV-A irradiation was delivered at fluences of 10 J/cm 2 (18 mW/cm 2 , 9:15 min) for Group B, 30 J/cm 2 (30 mW/cm 2 , 16:40 min) for Group C, and 60 J/cm 2 (30 mW/cm 2 , 33:18 min) for Group D. Corneal biomechanical properties were assessed via stress-strain extensiometry. Results: Mean elastic modulus (5% strain) values were: Group A (1.39 ± 0.49 N/mm), Group B (1.83 ± 0.48 N/mm), Group C (2.25 ± 0.83 N/mm), and Group D (2.31 ± 0.88 N/mm). Ultra-high fluence groups (C and D) showed significantly greater stiffening than Group B (P = 0.041 and P = 0.015), with no significant difference between Groups C and D (P = 1.00). Group B exhibited significantly greater stiffening than Group A (P = 0.023). Conclusions: Ultra-high fluence CXL enhances biomechanical stiffening compared to conventional high-fluence CXL, supporting its use in ECO-CAIRS. In this extracorporeal context, endothelial safety and haze are irrelevant, while increased stiffness facilitates intrastromal ring insertion and reduces corneal swelling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aydemir et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: