Vector analysis and Pentacam to compare standard cross‐linking and photorefractive keratectomy combined with accelerated cross‐linking in keratoconus management

Bernardo, Maddalena De; Vitiello, Livio; Abbinante, Giulia; Rosa, Nicola

doi:10.1111/aos.14037

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, pachymetry (central, thinnest and apex) was measured using Pentacam, as it is considered more accurate than ultrasonic measurements. 13,14 Exclusion criteria were dry eye syndrome, a history of herpetic eye disease, history of LASIK, pregnancy or lactation during the course of the study, active anterior and posterior segment pathologies, autoimmune disease and delayed epithelial healing. Patients with very thin corneas, corneal scarring or opacification within the pupillary area preventing a reliable acquisition with the aberrometer, or very poor corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were not included in the study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>High-Resolution Wavefront-Guided Photorefractive Keratectomy and Accelerated Corneal Crosslinking for Stabilization and Visual Rehabilitation of Keratoconus Eyes</p>

Tamayo¹,

Castell²,

Vargas³

et al. 2020

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the visual and refractive outcomes after high-resolution wavefrontguided (HRWG) surface ablation with corneal crosslinking (CXL) in keratoconus eyes. Patients and Methods: In this prospective, interventional case series, 47 eyes of 28 progressive keratoconus patients older than age 18 were enrolled. All patients underwent HRWG photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) with simultaneous accelerated CXL. The study parameters were manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE), keratometric outcomes, uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) at postoperative 6 and 12 months. Results: There was improvement in mean MRSE from −2.39±1.89 D preoperatively to −0.13 ± 0.68 D at 12 months, with corresponding improvement in UDVA from 0.77 ± 0.35 logMAR to 0.08 ± 0.12 logMAR and CDVA from 0.10 ± 0.11 logMAR to 0.02 ± 0.04 logMAR. Preoperative flat and steep keratometry (K) were 4wct 32.49 ± 1.67 D and 45.94 ± 2.10 D, respectively, and at postoperative 12 months were 41.36 ± 2.08 D and 42.65 ± 2.78 D, respectively. At postoperative 12 months, visual and refractive outcomes were maintained. Comparisons between preoperative and postoperative 12 month timepoints were statistically significant for all parameters. Conclusion: Simultaneous wavefront-guided PRK followed by CXL is a promising treatment for the visual rehabilitation of keratoconus patients.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>High-Resolution Wavefront-Guided Photorefractive Keratectomy and Accelerated Corneal Crosslinking for Stabilization and Visual Rehabilitation of Keratoconus Eyes</p>

Tamayo¹,

Castell²,

Vargas³

et al. 2020

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, they claimed that there was no statistically significant difference in the astigmatism; but, as there was a slight change in the axis, we wonder how they could state that there were no statistically significant changes without a vector analysis. 3,4 In this study, the authors used young patients. In our opinion, this makes the results difficult to be replicated in real life.…”

Section: Comment On: Effect Of Eyedrops and Applanation Tonometry On ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comment on: Effect of eyedrops and applanation tonometry on optical biometry

Bernardo

Marca²,

Rosa³

2021

J Cataract Refract Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the present study, a mean difference of about 20 microns between the two devices at the three different measurement points, with the limits of agreement in a range of about 35 microns, was found. Such differences in CT evaluation could be particularly significant in some clinical areas of ophthalmology, such as corneal refractive surgery [39], IOP measurement, and diagnosis and management of corneal disease [40], where a few microns could make a difference. For this reason, the two evaluated devices cannot be used interchangeably, unless the detected regression formulas are used, making them comparable.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the correlation between corneal thickness (CT) measurements obtained with two Scheimpflug devices, Pentacam HR and Precisio, and to elaborate, if necessary, a regression formula which could make these results comparable. Design Retrospective, Comparative, Observational study. Setting Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, “Scuola Medica Salernitana” University of Salerno, Italy Methods One hundred twenty four healthy eyes of 124 volunteers (65 males; range: 20–32 years; mean age of 24.8 ± 1.7) were included in this study. CT was measured using Pentacam HR and Precisio in three different points: the pupil center (PC), the corneal apex (CA) and the thinnest point (TP). Results CT obtained with both devices at the PC, at the CA and at the TP showed a good correlation (r = 0.97, r = 0.97, r = 0.97, respectively), but Pentacam HR measurements were significantly thicker than those provided by Precisio (p < 0.01). The differences between Pentacam HR and Precisio were 21.9 ± 8.8 μm at the PC, 21.9 ± 8.9 μm at the CA, 19.1 ± 9.0 μm at the TP. The calculated regression formulas were: y = 0.9558x + 2.3196 for the PC, y = 0.9519x + 4.5626 for the CA, y = 0.9364x + 15.436 for the TP, where x is the CT measured with Pentacam HR and y is the Precisio measurement. Conclusions The findings provided by this study highlight that Precisio measures thinner corneas compared to Pentacam HR. The identified regression formulas could be utilized to make interchangeable the results obtained with these two devices.

show abstract

Vector analysis and Pentacam to compare standard cross‐linking and photorefractive keratectomy combined with accelerated cross‐linking in keratoconus management

Cited by 3 publications

References 5 publications

<p>High-Resolution Wavefront-Guided Photorefractive Keratectomy and Accelerated Corneal Crosslinking for Stabilization and Visual Rehabilitation of Keratoconus Eyes</p>

<p>High-Resolution Wavefront-Guided Photorefractive Keratectomy and Accelerated Corneal Crosslinking for Stabilization and Visual Rehabilitation of Keratoconus Eyes</p>

Comment on: Effect of eyedrops and applanation tonometry on optical biometry

Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About