No abstract

No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) versus penetrating keratoplasty (PK), Outcome 2 Postoperative BCVA (varied follow-up times, post-suture removal) (LogMAR).. .. .. .. .. .. Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) versus penetrating keratoplasty (PK), Outcome 3 Postoperative functional BCVA achieved (varied follow-up times, post-suture removal).. .. .. .. . Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) versus penetrating keratoplasty (PK), Outcome 4 Postoperative UCVA (varied follow-up times, post-suture removal) (LogMAR).. .. .. .. .. .. Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) versus penetrating keratoplasty (PK), Outcome 5 Postoperative functional UCVA achieved (varied follow-up times, post-suture removal).. .. .. .. . Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) versus penetrating keratoplasty (PK), Outcome 6 Postoperative keratometric astigmatism (varied follow-up times, post-suture removal) (D).. .. .. .. Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) versus penetrating keratoplasty (PK), Outcome 7 Postoperative spherical equivalent (varied follow-up times, post-suture removal) (D).. .. .. .. .. Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) versus penetrating keratoplasty (PK), Outcome 8 Postoperative keratometric astigmatism (12 months

No abstract

Cyclosporine cannot currently be considered as an effective sole agent in prophylaxis and treatment of allograft rejection, and corticosteroids therefore remain the gold standard choice of therapy. Further studies are required to refine the role of cyclosporine in modern corneal transplantation.

Purpose: Keratoconus progression should be treated with corneal cross-linking (CXL) in a timely manner. This study aimed to investigate patient factors associated with keratoconus progression between time of listing and at time of CXL. Methods: Prospective observational study at a tertiary center. Ninety-six eyes of 96 patients with keratoconus. Demographic, clinical, and tomographic parameters were analyzed to determine the risk factors for keratoconus progression. Analyzed tomographic indices included steepest keratometry, average keratometry, cornea thinnest point, index of surface variance, index of vertical asymmetry, keratoconus index, center keratoconus index, index of height asymmetry, and index of height decentration. Results: A total of 38 eyes (39.6%) were found to have keratoconus progression during an average waiting time of 153 ± 101 days. There were significant differences in preoperative tomographic parameters such as index of surface variance (111.3 ± 36.6 vs. 88.3 ± 31.8; P = 0.002), index of vertical asymmetry (1.1 ± 0.4 vs. 0.9 ± 0.4; P = 0.005), keratoconus index (1.31 ± 0.12 vs. 1.22 ± 0.11; P < 0.001), and index of height decentration (0.16 ± 0.07 vs. 0.11 ± 0.06; P = 0.015) between eyes that progressed and those that remained stable. There were no significant differences in steepest keratometry, average keratometry, cornea thinnest point, and center keratoconus index. Multivariate analysis did not reveal age, presence of atopy/atopic keratoconjunctivitis, eye rubbing, or waiting time to be a significant risk factor for progression; however, Maori ethnicity was a risk factor (odds ratio = 3.89; P = 0.02). Conclusions: A significant proportion of eyes were found to be progressing while waiting for CXL. A risk stratification score for patients awaiting CXL may reduce the risk of progression.

was completed for every patient with keratoconus who underwent a consultation with participating optometrists in a 2-year period. Data for each patient included date of birth, sex, self-reported ethnicity, new or previous diagnosis, uncorrected (UCVA) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), type of refractive correction required to obtain BCVA and keratometric readings obtained using keratometry or computerized topography.Results: One thousand eight hundred sixty-nine cases were identified, with a mean age of 41.0 6 15.7 years, 56.4% being men, and 87.3% with previous diagnosis. The distribution of cases was skewed toward Auckland (41.6%), Waikato (21.3%), Wellington (16.8%), and Bay of Plenty (13.3%). Self-reported ethnicities were predominantly NZ European (54.4%), M aori (24.7%), and Pacific Peoples (15.5%), disproportionate to the general population profile (74.0%, 14.9%, and 7.4% respectively). Most eyes (64.3%) were managed with rigid contact lenses (corneal lens in 34.2%). The mean K-mean was 49.0 6 5.7 D. The mean UCVA was 6/42 and BCVA was 6/9. M aori and Pacific Peoples had both the highest K-mean and proportions of eyes graded stage IV on the Amsler-Krumeich scale. Conclusions:The results indicate that keratoconus is relatively common in NZ with at least 1869 patients managed by optometrists in 2 years. Most eyes had mild to moderate disease; however, M aori and Pacific Peoples seem to have greater disease severity. An ethnic predilection is apparent, with M aori and Pacific Peoples overrepresented relative to their population proportions, reinforcing a long-held clinical suspicion.

AK is a rare vision-threatening protozoal infection with rapidly-increasing incidence in New Zealand, predominantly affecting CL users. Diagnosis is often challenging and when delayed is associated with worse outcomes. IVCM offers rapid diagnosis with high sensitivity.