Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology
Published in: Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology 4/2018

01-07-2018 | Clinical Investigation

Evaluation of corneal biomechanics in patients with keratectasia following LASIK using dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer

Authors: Ryotaro Ueki, Naoyuki Maeda, Mutsumi Fuchihata, Tomoko Asai, Shizuka Koh, Hisataka Fujimoto, Masafumi Uematsu, Kohji Nishida

Published in: Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology | Issue 4/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the corneal biomechanics in eyes with keratectasia following LASIK using a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer.

Design

Case–Control study.

Method

The subjects in the study included 12 eyes with keratectasia after LASIK (KE), 24 eyes with keratoconus (KC), 17 eyes without keratectasia after LASIK (LASIK), and 34 eyes with normal corneas (Normal). Corneal biomechanics of the four groups were evaluated using a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer.

Results

Compared with Normal (7.06 ± 0.54), the radius at the highest concavity (radius, mm) of LASIK (5.96 ± 0.76), KE (4.93 ± 0.61) and KC (5.39 ± 1.02) were significantly small. The Deflection Amplitude (HCDLA, mm) of Normal (0.94 ± 0.07) was significantly lower than those of KE (1.11 ± 0.10) and KC (1.06 ± 0.16), and was not significantly different from that of LASIK (0.98 ± 0.07). There were significant differences between LASIK and KE in radius and HCDLA (P < 0.05), whereas KE and KC had no differences in these parameters.

Conclusions

Corneal biomechanical features evaluated using the dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer suggest that biomechanical properties in eyes with keratectasia, keratoconus, and LASIK are different from those of normal eyes. Although the biomechanics in eyes with keratectasia differs from that in eyes with LASIK, it is similar to that in eyes with keratoconus.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Seiler T, Quurke AW. Iatrogenic keratectasia after LASIK in a case of forme fruste keratoconus. J Cataract Refractive Surg. 1998;24:1007–9.CrossRef
2.
Seiler T. Iatrogenic keratectasia: academic anxiety or serious risk? J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25:1307–8.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Comaish IF, Lawless MA. Progressive post-LASIK keratectasia: biomechanical instability or chronic disease process? J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:2206–13.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Randleman JB, Caster AI, Banning CS, Stulting RD. Corneal ectasia after photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:1395–8.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Binder PS. Analysis of ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis: risk factors. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33:1530–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Randleman JB, Russell B, Ward MA, Thompson KP, Stulting RD. Risk factors and prognosis for corneal ectasia after LASIK. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:267–75.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:156–62.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Pepose JS, Feigenbaum SK, Qazi MA, Sanderson JP, Roberts CJ. Changes in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic, and noncontact tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:39–47.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Fontes BM, Ambrosio R Jr, Jardim D, Velarde GC, Nose W. Corneal biomechanical metrics and anterior segment parameters in mild keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:673–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Vinciguerra P, Albe E, Mahmoud AM, Trazza S, Hafezi F, Roberts CJ. Intra- and postoperative variation in ocular response analyzer parameters in keratoconic eyes after corneal cross-linking. J Refract Surg. 2010;26:669–76.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Greenstein SA, Fry KL, Hersh PS. In vivo biomechanical changes after corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: 1-year analysis of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Cornea. 2012;31:21–5.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Kerautret J, Colin J, Touboul D, Roberts C. Biomechanical characteristics of the ectatic cornea. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:510–3.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Ambrosio R Jr, Dawson DG, Salomao M, Guerra FP, Caiado AL, Belin MW. Corneal ectasia after LASIK despite low preoperative risk: tomographic and biomechanical findings in the unoperated, stable, fellow eye. J Refract Surg. 2010;26:906–11.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Hong J, Xu J, Wei A, Deng SX, Cui X, Yu X, et al. A new tonometer—the Corvis ST tonometer: clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:659–65.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Maeda N, Ueki R, Fuchihata M, Fujimoto H, Koh S, Nishida K. Corneal biomechanical properties in 3 corneal transplantation techniques with a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2014;58:483–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Tian L, Ko MW, Wang LK, Zhang JY, Li TJ, Huang YF, et al. Assessment of ocular biomechanics using dynamic ultra high-speed Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconic and normal eyes. J Refract Surg. 2014;30:785–91.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Asaoka R, Nakakura S, Tabuchi H, Murata H, Nakao Y, Ihara N, et al. The relationship between corvis ST tonometry measured corneal parameters and intraocular pressure, corneal thickness and corneal curvature. PLoS One. 2015;10:1–11.CrossRef
18.
Shimazaki J, Maeda N, Hieda O, Ohashi Y, Murakami A, Nishida K, et al. National survey of pellucid marginal corneal degeneration in Japan. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2016;60:341–8.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Gatinel D, Chaabouni S, Adam PA, Munck J, Puech M, Hoang-Xuan T. Corneal hysteresis, resistance factor, topography, and pachymetry after corneal lamellar flap. J Refract Surg. 2007;23:76–84.PubMed
20.
Kirwan C, O’Malley D, O’Keefe M. Corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in keratoectasia: findings using the Reichert ocular response analyzer. Ophthalmologica. 2008;222:334–7.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Uzbek AK, Kamburoğlu G, Mahmoud AM, Roberts CJ. Change in biomechanical parameters after flap creation using the Intralase femtosecond laser and subsequent excimer laser ablation. Curr Eye Res. 2011;36:614–9.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Maeda N, Nakagawa T, Kosaki R, Koh S, Saika M, Fujikado T, et al. Higher-order aberrations of anterior and posterior corneal surfaces in patients with keratectasia after LASIK. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:3905–11.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Miki A, Maeda N, Asai T, Ikuno Y, Nishida K. Measurement repeatability of the dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2017;61:433–40.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Roberts CJ. Concepts and misconceptions in corneal biomechanics. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40:862–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Leccisotti A, Fields SV, Moore J, Shah S, Moore TC. Changes in ocular biomechanics after femtosecond laser creation of a laser in situ keratomileusis flap. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42:127–31.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Miki A, Maeda N, Ikuno Y, Asai T, Hara C, Nishida K. Factors associated with corneal deformation responses measured with a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58:538–44.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of corneal biomechanics in patients with keratectasia following LASIK using dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer
Authors
Ryotaro Ueki
Naoyuki Maeda
Mutsumi Fuchihata
Tomoko Asai
Shizuka Koh
Hisataka Fujimoto
Masafumi Uematsu
Kohji Nishida
Publication date
01-07-2018
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0021-5155
Electronic ISSN: 1613-2246
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-018-0594-5

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology 4/2018 Go to the issue

Laboratory Investigation

Gene expression changes in the retina after systemic administration of aldosterone

Clinical Investigation

The National Registry of Retinoblastoma in Japan (1983–2014)

Laboratory Investigation

Optimization of fixative solution for retinal morphology: a comparison with Davidson’s fixative and other fixation solutions

Clinical Investigation

Effectiveness of real-time PCR for diagnosis and prognosis of varicella-zoster virus keratitis

Clinical Investigation

Clinical characteristics of a Japanese patient with Bardet-Biedl syndrome caused by BBS10 mutations

Clinical Investigation

Comparison of changes of macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer defect between stable group and progression group in primary open-angle glaucoma