Evidence Hub

One-Year Comparative Outcomes of Conventional Versus Accelerated Corneal Cross-Linking in Progressive Keratoconus

Bešlić I, Vidas Pauk S, Tomić M, Kalauz M, Kuzman T, Jandroković S, Škegro I, Geber A et al.

Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2026

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) halts keratoconus progression, yet potential differences between conventional and accelerated protocols at one year remain uncertain. We analyzed the completed 12-month follow-up of a previously reported 6-month cohort to compare conventional (3 mW/cm2 × 30 min; CXL 30) versus accelerated (9 mW/cm2 × 10 min; CXL 10) CXL, interpreting outcomes within the ABCD framework alongside Kmax and curvature radii. Materials and Methods: In this single-center retrospective longitudinal analysis of prospectively collected routine clinical data, 22 eyes were included, with assessments performed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up. Evaluated outcomes comprised ABCD stages (A-D), anterior and posterior radius of curvature (ARC and PRC), Kmax, pachymetric and elevation indices, as well as UDVA and BCVA. Within-group change used Friedman with Wilcoxon post hoc; between-group differences used Mann-Whitney (α = 0.05). Results: Both protocols resulted in significant visual improvement and Kmax reduction at 12 months (overall time effect: CXL 30 p p = 0.026). Median Kmax decreased 56.5 → 52.3 D (CXL 30) and 59.3 → 58.3 D (CXL 10). UDVA improved 0.2 → 0.6 (CXL 30) and 0.2 → 0.3 (CXL 10); BCVA 0.4 → 0.8 (CXL 30) and 0.2 → 0.5 (CXL 10). Tomographic analysis showed predominantly anterior changes, with a significant decrease in A stage in the CXL 30 group and an increase in ARC in both groups, more pronounced in CXL 30.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free