Ryotaro Ueki1,2, Naoyuki Maeda3, Mutsumi Fuchihata1, Tomoko Asai1, Shizuka Koh1, Hisataka Fujimoto1, Masafumi Uematsu2, Kohji Nishida1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Room E7, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Room E7, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. nmaeda@ophthal.med.osaka-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the corneal biomechanics in eyes with keratectasia following LASIK using a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer. DESIGN: Case-Control study. METHOD: The subjects in the study included 12 eyes with keratectasia after LASIK (KE), 24 eyes with keratoconus (KC), 17 eyes without keratectasia after LASIK (LASIK), and 34 eyes with normal corneas (Normal). Corneal biomechanics of the four groups were evaluated using a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer. RESULTS: Compared with Normal (7.06 ± 0.54), the radius at the highest concavity (radius, mm) of LASIK (5.96 ± 0.76), KE (4.93 ± 0.61) and KC (5.39 ± 1.02) were significantly small. The Deflection Amplitude (HCDLA, mm) of Normal (0.94 ± 0.07) was significantly lower than those of KE (1.11 ± 0.10) and KC (1.06 ± 0.16), and was not significantly different from that of LASIK (0.98 ± 0.07). There were significant differences between LASIK and KE in radius and HCDLA (P < 0.05), whereas KE and KC had no differences in these parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Corneal biomechanical features evaluated using the dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer suggest that biomechanical properties in eyes with keratectasia, keratoconus, and LASIK are different from those of normal eyes. Although the biomechanics in eyes with keratectasia differs from that in eyes with LASIK, it is similar to that in eyes with keratoconus.
PURPOSE: To investigate the corneal biomechanics in eyes with keratectasia following LASIK using a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer. DESIGN: Case-Control study. METHOD: The subjects in the study included 12 eyes with keratectasia after LASIK (KE), 24 eyes with keratoconus (KC), 17 eyes without keratectasia after LASIK (LASIK), and 34 eyes with normal corneas (Normal). Corneal biomechanics of the four groups were evaluated using a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer. RESULTS: Compared with Normal (7.06 ± 0.54), the radius at the highest concavity (radius, mm) of LASIK (5.96 ± 0.76), KE (4.93 ± 0.61) and KC (5.39 ± 1.02) were significantly small. The Deflection Amplitude (HCDLA, mm) of Normal (0.94 ± 0.07) was significantly lower than those of KE (1.11 ± 0.10) and KC (1.06 ± 0.16), and was not significantly different from that of LASIK (0.98 ± 0.07). There were significant differences between LASIK and KE in radius and HCDLA (P < 0.05), whereas KE and KC had no differences in these parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Corneal biomechanical features evaluated using the dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer suggest that biomechanical properties in eyes with keratectasia, keratoconus, and LASIK are different from those of normal eyes. Although the biomechanics in eyes with keratectasia differs from that in eyes with LASIK, it is similar to that in eyes with keratoconus.
Authors: Jay S Pepose; Susan K Feigenbaum; Mujtaba A Qazi; Jeffrey P Sanderson; Cynthia J Roberts Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2006-10-20 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: J Bradley Randleman; Buddy Russell; Michael A Ward; Keith P Thompson; R Doyle Stulting Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Majid Moshirfar; Alyson N Tukan; Nour Bundogji; Harry Y Liu; Shannon E McCabe; Yasmyne C Ronquillo; Phillip C Hoopes Journal: Ophthalmol Ther Date: 2021-08-20