Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of corneal biomechanical properties 25 years after myopic photorefractive keratectomy

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate corneal biomechanical changes using Corvis ST in patients treated with photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) 25 years ago.

Methods

In this study, 32 post-PRK and 38 normal eyes underwent Corvis ST (CST) assessments. The measured CST factors were: time of highest concavity (HC), time of applanation 1 (AT1), time of applanation 2 (AT2), length of applanation 1 (AL1), length of applanation 2 (AL2), velocity of applanation 1 (AV1), velocity of applanation 2 (AV2), deformation amplitude (DA), peak distance (PD), integrated radius (IR), Ambrosio relational thickness horizontal (ARTh), stiffness parameter at first applanation (SP-A1), DA ratio (2 mm), Belin/Ambrosio enhanced ectasia display (BAD) and corneal biomechanical index (CBI).

Results

The mean [± standard deviation (SD)] age was 51.4 ± 7.36 years in PRK, 51.4 ± 3.62 in control group. PRK was performed 24.69 ± 1.78 years ago. ARTh, SP-A1, AT1, AL1, and AL2 were lower in PRK. PD, AT2, DA ratio (2 mm), and IR were statistically higher in PRK (P < 0.01). In PRK and control group the mean value of CBI was 0.91 ± 0.11 and 0.50 ± 0.27 (P < 0.001), and mean value of BAD was 3.34 ± 1.53 and 1.1 ± 0.70 (P < 0.001). In PRK 71.9% of eyes were classed “high risk CBI plus diseased BAD” and 25% remained in the “high risk CBI and normal BAD” group.

Conclusions

In this study, most of the post-PRK eyes which were clinically and topographically normal were classified as “high risk CBI plus diseased BAD” and had significantly worse CBI and BAD values than the control group. This leads to the conclusion that CBI and BAD alone are not appropriate to evaluate post-PRK ectasia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taneri S, Weisberg M, Azar DT (2011) Surface ablation techniques. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(2):392–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.11.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ang EK, Couper T, Dirani M, Vajpayee RB, Baird PN (2009) Outcomes of laser refractive surgery for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 35(5):921–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Guirao A (2005) Theoretical elastic response of the cornea to refractive surgery: risk factors for keratectasia. J Refract Surg 21(2):176–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Roberts C (2005) Biomechanical customization: the next generation of laser refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 31(1):2–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.11.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Klein SR, Epstein RJ, Randleman JB, Stulting RD (2006) Corneal ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis in patients without apparent preoperative risk factors. Cornea 25(4):388–403. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ico.0000222479.68242.77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lanza M, Iaccarino S, Bifani M (2016) In vivo human corneal deformation analysis with a Scheimpflug camera, a critical review. J Biophotonics 9(5):464–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbio.201500233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lanza M, Cennamo M, Iaccarino S, Romano V, Bifani M, Irregolare C, Lanza A (2015) Evaluation of corneal deformation analyzed with a Scheimpflug based device. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 38(2):89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2014.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen X, Stojanovic A, Hua Y, Eidet JR, Hu D, Wang J, Utheim TP (2014) Reliability of corneal dynamic scheimpflug analyser measurements in virgin and post-PRK eyes. PLoS ONE 9(10):e109577. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109577

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Vinciguerra R, Ambrósio R Jr, Elsheikh A, Roberts CJ, Lopes B, Morenghi E, Azzolini C, Vinciguerra P (2016) Detection of Keratoconus With a New Biomechanical Index. J Refract Surg 32(12):803–810. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20160629-01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Belin MW, Villavicencio OF, Ambrósio RR Jr (2014) Tomographic parameters for the detection of keratoconus: suggestions for screening and treatment parameters. Eye Contact Lens 40(6):326–330. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Poyales F, Garzón N, Mendicute J, Illarramendi I, Caro P, Jáñez O, Argüeso F, López A (2017) Corneal densitometry after photorefractive keratectomy, laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis, and small-incision lenticule extraction. Eye (Lond) 31(12):1647–1654. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2017.107

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang K, Xu L, Fan Q, Gu Y, Song P, Zhang B, Zhao D, Pang C, Ren S (2020) Evaluation of new Corvis ST parameters in normal, Post-LASIK, Post-LASIK keratectasia and keratoconus eyes. Sci Rep 10(1):5676. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020+-62825-y

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Shen Y, Chen Z, Knorz MC, Li M, Zhao J, Zhou X (2014) Comparison of corneal deformation parameters after SMILE, LASEK, and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK. J Refract Surg 30(5):310–318. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x-20140422-01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yu AY, Shao H, Pan A, Wang Q, Huang Z, Song B, McAlinden C, Huang J, Chen S (2020) Corneal biomechanical properties in myopic eyes evaluated via Scheimpflug imaging. BMC Ophthalmol 20(1):279. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-01530-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hashemi H, Asgari S, Mortazavi M, Ghaffari R (2017) Evaluation of corneal biomechanics after excimer laser corneal refractive surgery in high myopic patients using dynamic scheimpflug technology. Eye Contact Lens 43(6):371–377. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lanza M, De Rosa L, Sbordone S, Boccia R, Gironi Carnevale UA, Simonelli F (2020) Analysis of corneal distortion after myopic PRK. J Clin Med 10(1):82. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010082

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lanza M, Cennamo M, Iaccarino S, Irregolare C, Rechichi M, Bifani M, Gironi Carnevale UA (2014) Evaluation of corneal deformation analyzed with Scheimpflug based device in healthy eyes and diseased ones. Biomed Res Int 2014:748671. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/748671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Salomão MQ, Hofling-Lima AL, Gomes Esporcatte LP, Lopes B, Vinciguerra R, Vinciguerra P, Bühren J, Sena N Jr, Luz Hilgert GS, Ambrósio R Jr (2020) The role of corneal biomechanics for the evaluation of ectasia patients. Int J Environ Health Res 17(6):2113. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17062113

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, Grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtarslan Oncology Training and Research Hospital, 06400, Ankara, Turkey

    Sibel Özdoğan

  2. Departments of Ophthalmology, Gazi University Medical School, Ankara, Turkey

    Gökhan Gürelik & Kamil Bilgihan

Authors
  1. Sibel Özdoğan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gökhan Gürelik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kamil Bilgihan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by SÖ, GG and KB. The first draft of the manuscript was written by SÖ and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sibel Özdoğan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Health Science University, Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtarslan Oncology Training Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology (Date: 08.01.2020; File number: 2020-01/497).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Özdoğan, S., Gürelik, G. & Bilgihan, K. Analysis of corneal biomechanical properties 25 years after myopic photorefractive keratectomy. Int Ophthalmol 43, 325–331 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02436-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02436-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation