Talk:Corneal cross-linking

I'm proposing we rename the title of the page

About 4 years ago, the community decided to change the name from "corneal collagen cross-linking" to "corneal cross-linking" - the reason being that it's not just the collagen in the stroma that's being cross-linked, it's also other molecules like proteoglycans. I was there for the vote on the name change by the cross-linking community at the 2014 meeting of the CXL Experts' Meeting in Zurich... Is everyone OK with that?

This needs updating, bigly

There's nothing on the pediatric use, oxygen availability being crucial to the reaction and limiting how far you can push the illumination, and there's nothing on the refractive/ customised CXL that's going on. Also, nobody has called it CCL in years, and now we know more than just collagen in the stroma is being cross-linked, "collagen" has been dropped from the title of the technique. Page should be renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillenmjp (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

General improvements to this page

Dear all, I made a few improvements to this neglected page.

1) The "Medical uses" section has been updated, considering that it didn't have any information that was relevant to its name. The ref. to the Cochrane Review has been left where it was (although I do believe that it's a very restrictive kind of report);

2) Now the CXL with epithelium removal is defined as the "standard protocol", while the other derivative techniques are in the "Other techniques" section;

3) The "Combination with refractive eye surgeries" section has been updated and has one new ref.;

4) The "Approval" section has been updated and now includes a ref. regarding Corneal Cross-linking being officially approved throughout Europe;

5) I therefore removed the Template:Multiple issues. The rest remains untouched.

I hope that my fellow Wikipedians will not remove this new and verifiable content, in order to give more complete information to all our readers. Thanks,

--Strumentistica.marziale (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the 2015 Cochrane review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I see, I have also restored the sentence that explained what the purpose of CXL is, since there is no description of its aims in the whole page, just a brief explanation of its procedure. Please note that the sentence states that those are the aims of such a technique, I hope this meets the approval of everybody, as it's important to give complete and correct information. Thanks,

--Strumentistica.marziale (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay summarized as "It is used in an attempt to make the cornea stronger" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Other crosslinking methods

• Collagen Cross-Linking Using Rose Bengal and Green Light
• Two-photon crosslinking

Could we list other crosslinking methods on this page? cc:User:Doc_James k18s (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Are there review articles looking at these? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Not any that I know. but IMO these worth to be mentioned, even if it is only one line. k18s (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Potential vandalism

The entire "Combination with refractive eye surgeries" section was removed with no reason: I would suggest not to perform such modifications to the article. Besides, the concept of CXL + refractive surgery is now globally applied, a condition that would require more information on this topic, certainly not censorship.

Thanks everyone, Strumentistica.marziale (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Needs to be supported by high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. The source was not pubmed indexed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits of 18 March

I've reverted this pair of edits, which were problematic. The content was lifted directly from livingwithkeratoconus.com, where copyright is claimed. The content was also promotional, gave medical advice, and spoke from an exclusively US perspective. —BillC ^talk 02:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You're going to throw out all those edits instead of the problematic portions? That seems very lazy and counterproductive. 50.222.28.4 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Copy-Edit Suggestions

Hello - Below are some edits that should be considered to the opening section of this page. 

(Redacted)

Add: Cross-linking is performed across the globe and is considered as a treatment option for keratoconus patients to preserve vision.

(Redacted) Thank you! LivingWithKC (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry we can't add that, as it's a violation of our copyright policy.— Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to Medical Uses Section

Hello - We are recommending that the Medical Uses section is updated with the following:

(Redacted)

Thank you! LivingWithKC (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry we can't add that, as it's a violation of our copyright policy.— Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions to Adverse Effects & Cautions Sections

Hello - we are recommending that the Adverse Effects and Cautions sections be updated with the following: 

Adverse effects The most common ocular adverse reaction was corneal opacity (haze). (Redacted) For those who undergo FDA-approved epi-off cross-linking, ulcerative keratitis can occur. Patients should be monitored for resolution of epithelial defects. 

These are not all of the side effects of the corneal collagen cross-linking treatment. (Redacted)

There are no long-term studies about crosslinking effect on pregnancy and lactation. According to manufacturer crosslinking should not be performed on pregnant women.[4] 

Cautions (Redacted)

Thank you! LivingWithKC (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry we can't add that, as it's a violation of our copyright policy. Also, please see WP:MEDRS.— Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

extremely US centric

and outdated 86.174.120.17 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)