MyoRing Treatment for Keratoconus: DIOPTEX PocketMaker vs Ziemer LDV for Corneal Pocket Creation

Daxer, Barbara; Mahmood, Haifa; Daxer, Albert

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10025-1029

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study had to be limited to patients representing a homogenous ethnic group (central European population) to rule out an influence resulting from ethnic variations. The nomograms of patients from the Middle East, for example, must be different from those used for European populations to avoid overcorrections 4 . The first follow-up exam performed in the eyes included in the study was between 3 months and 24 months after surgery (9 ± 1.8).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Long-term results of MyoRing treatment of keratoconus

Daxer

Ettl

Hörantner

2017

Journal of Optometry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo study long-term results of MyoRing treatment of keratoconus.MethodsRetrospective study of MyoRing implantation into a corneal pocket for keratoconus.ResultsCorneal thickness at the thinnest point remained unchanged, SIM K's, manifest sphere and cylinder were significantly improved at the first follow-up 9 months postoperatively and remained stable until the last follow-up about 5 years after surgery. Uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, CDVA) were significantly improved at the first follow-up 9 months postoperatively and were further ameliorated until the last follow-up about 5 years after surgery.ConclusionThe treatment was safe and effective with continuing improvement of visual acuity during the 5 years after surgery.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the suggested visual potential of the individual eye, some 20% of the patients draw a visual benefit from a simple postoperative enhancement 4 . The enhancement is performed either by optimizing the position in relation to the real postoperative optical axis or by exchanging the MyoRing for one with different dimensions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term results of MyoRing treatment of keratoconus

Daxer

Ettl

Hörantner

2017

Journal of Optometry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[ 27 28 ] Nevertheless, segment extrusion, epithelial plug at the initial incision site, corneal neovascularization, segment migration, infectious keratitis, channel deposits, chronic pain, corneal haze, corneal melting, persistent incisional gaping, night halos and focal edema were reported as complications and limitations of ICRS implantation. Daxer et al[ 29 ] have shown that visual outcomes of MyoRing implantation for keratoconus does not depend on whether the corneal pocket is created by the femtosecond laser or mechanical dissection using the Pocket Maker microkeratome. In addition, no correlation was found between the type and location of the cone, and outcomes of MyoRing implantation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MyoRing implantation in keratoconic patients: 3 years follow-up data

Janani

Jadidi

Mosavi

et al. 2016

J Ophthalmic Vis Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To evaluate long-term follow-up data on implantation of a full-ring intra-corneal implant (MyoRing) for management of keratoconus.Methods:A total of 40 keratoconic eyes of 37 consecutive patients who had undergone MyoRing implantation using the Pocket Maker microkeratome (Dioptex, GmbH, Linz, Austria) and completed 3 years of follow-up appointments were included in this retrospective study. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), refraction and keratometry (K) readings were measured and evaluated preoperatively, and 3 years, postoperatively.Results:No intraoperative complications were observed in this case series. Three years postoperatively, there was a significant improvement in UDVA, CDVA, K readings, spherical equivalent (SE), and manifest sphere and cylinder (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). UDVA was significantly improved from 1.14 ± 0.27 to 0.30 ± 0.21 LogMAR (P = 0.001), CDVA was also improved from 0.52 ± 0.23 to 0.18 ± 0.12 LogMAR (P = 0.001), SE was decreased by 4.35 diopters (D) and average keratometric values were reduced by 2.34 D (P = 0.001). Overall, 81% of subjects were moderately to highly satisfied 3 years after surgery and 64.90% agreed to have the fellow eye implanted with MyoRing.Conclusion:MyoRing implantation using the Pocket Maker microkeratome was found to be a minimally invasive procedure for improving visual acuity and refraction in the majority of the patients with keratoconus.

show abstract

“…In some of these studies, actual versus intended insertion depth were assessed whereas others evaluated visual outcomes relative to intracorneal ring depth. In addition, pocket creation for intracorneal ring implantation using femtosecond laser and PocketMaker has been compared in several studies [ 20 – 23 ]. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no reports on the MyoRing implantation depth measurement using AS-OCT images and comparison of its insertion by two methods including PocketMaker and Melles hook.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the MyoRing implantation depth by mechanical dissection using PocketMaker microkeratome versus Melles hook via AS-OCT

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis paper seeks to evaluate the depth and outcomes of MyoRing implantation using two mechanical dissection procedures including: PocketMaker microkeratome in opposition to the Melles hook method.MethodsThis retrospective study was carried out on 39 eyes of 38 keratoconus patients (28 male and 10 female) with the mean age of years and had undergone MyoRing implantation by the two mentioned methods. The MyoRing was inserted into the corneal pocket which was made manually in 18 eyes (Melles hook group) or with PocketMaker microkeratome in 21 eyes (PocketMaker group). The mean follow up time was months with pre-operative and post-operative ophthalmic examination including uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), keratometry readings and central corneal thickness measurement. AS-OCT (Casia, SS-1000, Tomey, Nagoya, Japan) imaging was used to measure MyoRing insertion depth, exactly.ResultsPre-operative and post-operative UCVA (LogMAR) mean change for the PocketMaker and Melles hook groups were recorded at 0.75 ± 0.32 and 0.78 ± 0.33, respectively. Similarly, BCVA (LogMAR) mean change were 0.27 ± 0.22 and 0.23 ± 0.22. Mean keratometry (Kmean) change were 6.06 ± 4.18 and 6.56 ± 3.55 respectively. UCVA change (P = 0.767), BCVA change (P = 0.77) and Kmean change (P = 0.693) showed that there was no statistically significant difference between both groups for any parameter. Depth measurements achieved from AS-OCT images showed that there was no statistically significant difference in pocket depth between two methods of MyoRing implantation (P = 0.413).ConclusionsThe results of Myoring implantation outcomes using mechanical dissection via PocketMaker microkeratome as against Melles hook are comparable.

show abstract

MyoRing Treatment for Keratoconus: DIOPTEX PocketMaker vs Ziemer LDV for Corneal Pocket Creation

Cited by 12 publications

References 11 publications

Long-term results of MyoRing treatment of keratoconus

Long-term results of MyoRing treatment of keratoconus

MyoRing implantation in keratoconic patients: 3 years follow-up data

Comparison of the MyoRing implantation depth by mechanical dissection using PocketMaker microkeratome versus Melles hook via AS-OCT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About