Translational vision science & technology · 2022
Optical Evaluation of Intracorneal Ring Segment Surgery in Keratoconus.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alejandre Nicolas, Pérez-Merino Pablo, Velarde Gonzalo, Jiménez-Alfaro Ignacio, Marcos Susana
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of different intracorneal ring segments (ICRS) combinations on corneal morphology and visual performance on patients with keratoconus.
METHODS: A total of 124 eyes from 96 patients who underwent ICRS surgery were analyzed and classified into 7 groups based on ICRS disposition and the diameter of the surgical zone (5- and 6-mm). Pre- and postoperative complete ophthalmological examinations were conducted. Corneal geometry, volume, and symmetry were studied. Zernike polynomials were used to build a virtual ray-tracing model to evaluate optical aberrations and the Visual Strehl (VS).
RESULTS: ICRS induced significant flattening across the cornea, being more pronounced on the anterior (+0.38 mm, P < 0.001) than on the posterior (+0.15 mm, P < 0.001) corneal radius. Asphericity experienced a larger change for a 6-mm surgical zone diameter (from -1.23 ± 1.1 to -1.86 ± 1.2, P < 0.001) than for a 5-mm zone (from -1.99 ± 1.1 to -2.10 ± 1.5, P = 0.536). Mean astigmatism was reduced by 2.05 D (P < 0.001). Combination four was the most effective in reducing astigmatism. Coma decreased by 30% on average and combination one produced an average reduction by 51% (P < 0.05). Patients experienced significant improvement in visual performance, best corrected visual acuity increased from 0.57 ± 0.21 to 0.69 ± 0.21 and VS changed from 0.049 ± 0.02 to 0.065 ± 0.041.
CONCLUSIONS: ICRS combinations implanted within 5 mm diameter zone are more effective in flattening the cornea, whereas those implanted on 6 mm diameter are as effective in reducing astigmatism and are a good choice if the asymmetry and the intended flattening are smaller. Combinations with asymmetrical implants are the best option to regularize corneal surface.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This study uses methods and metrics of optical research applied to daily clinical practice.
METHODS: A total of 124 eyes from 96 patients who underwent ICRS surgery were analyzed and classified into 7 groups based on ICRS disposition and the diameter of the surgical zone (5- and 6-mm). Pre- and postoperative complete ophthalmological examinations were conducted. Corneal geometry, volume, and symmetry were studied. Zernike polynomials were used to build a virtual ray-tracing model to evaluate optical aberrations and the Visual Strehl (VS).
RESULTS: ICRS induced significant flattening across the cornea, being more pronounced on the anterior (+0.38 mm, P < 0.001) than on the posterior (+0.15 mm, P < 0.001) corneal radius. Asphericity experienced a larger change for a 6-mm surgical zone diameter (from -1.23 ± 1.1 to -1.86 ± 1.2, P < 0.001) than for a 5-mm zone (from -1.99 ± 1.1 to -2.10 ± 1.5, P = 0.536). Mean astigmatism was reduced by 2.05 D (P < 0.001). Combination four was the most effective in reducing astigmatism. Coma decreased by 30% on average and combination one produced an average reduction by 51% (P < 0.05). Patients experienced significant improvement in visual performance, best corrected visual acuity increased from 0.57 ± 0.21 to 0.69 ± 0.21 and VS changed from 0.049 ± 0.02 to 0.065 ± 0.041.
CONCLUSIONS: ICRS combinations implanted within 5 mm diameter zone are more effective in flattening the cornea, whereas those implanted on 6 mm diameter are as effective in reducing astigmatism and are a good choice if the asymmetry and the intended flattening are smaller. Combinations with asymmetrical implants are the best option to regularize corneal surface.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This study uses methods and metrics of optical research applied to daily clinical practice.