Analysis of Corneal Distortion after Myopic PRK

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the corneal biomechanical properties (CBP) and their behaviors after myopic refractive surgery both with Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and Corvis ST (CST). This retrospective study included 145 eyes of 145 patients with a mean age of 33.13 ± 9.24 years, who underwent myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for a refractive defect, measured as spherical equivalent, of mean −4.69 ± 2.04 D and have been evaluated before surgery and at 1, 3 and 6 months follow-up. Corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) values significantly decreased after 1 month and remained statistically stable during further follow-ups. CST parameters had a different evolution: only second applanation time (AT2) differences showed a significant variation after 1 month that did not statistically change over time. Highest concavity deformation amplitude (HCDA), highest concavity peak distance (HCPD), first applanation time (AT1) and velocity (AV1) showed continuous significant differences both after 3 and after 6 months. This study suggests that after central surface ablation surgery, such as myopic PRK, corneal shape is remodeling, and its deformation parameters are going to change even at 6 months follow-up. This indicates that it should be important to evaluate refractive surgery patients during a longer follow-up because this could allow earlier diagnosis and better management of late-onset complications.

Evaluation of corneal distortion characteristics in different eyes using Scheimpflug camera device

“…Corneal deformation analysis is a very interesting topic because understanding how the corneas (both healthy and altered ones) react to external stress could let physicians to better understand how make earlier diagnosis and how to better manage corneal diseases. This study confirms some of the findings previously published [8,19,20,21] and provides some different results compared to other ones [22,23,24,25]. Differences observed in the different studies could be related to many reasons: populations analyzed are very different, so are the inclusion and exclusion criteria adopted.…”