Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2020
Fourier Analysis of Keratometric Data in Epithelium Removal versus Epithelial Disruption Corneal Cross-linking.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Bamdad Shahram, Zaheryani Seyed Mohammad Salar, Mohaghegh Sahar, Shirvani Mohammad
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare epithelium-removal and epithelium-disruption corneal crosslinking (CXL) methods in Fourier analysis of keratometric data and clinical outcomes.
METHODS: In this double masked randomized clinical trial, each eye of 34 patients with bilateral keratoconus was randomly allocated to either the epithelium-removal or epithelium-disruption CXL treatment groups. Ocular examination, refraction, uncorrected and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (UCVA and BSCVA, respectively) measurements, and Pentacam imaging (keratometry, pachymetry, and Fourier analysis) were performed at baseline and at six-month follow-up period.
RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 23.3 ± 3.6 years. The preoperative thickness of the thinnest point was 459.20 ± 37.40 µm and 455.80 ± 32.70 µm in the epithelium-removal and epithelial-disruption CXL groups, respectively (P > 0.05). The corresponding figures were 433.50 ± 33.50 µm and 451.90 ± 39.70 µm, respectively, six months after the treatment (P = 0.0001). Irregularity component of the fourier analysis was 0.030 ± 0.016 µm in the epithelium-removal group and 0.028 ± 0.011 µm in the epithelium-disruption group preoperatively (P > 0.05). This measurement was 0.031 ± 0.016 µm and 0.024 ± 0.009 µm, respectively at month 6 (P = 0.04). The epithelium-disruption CXL group had better results in terms of the thickness of the thinnest point and the irregularity component as compared to the epithelium-removal group. The two study groups were comparable in spherical equivalent, mean keratometry, UCVA, BSCVA, or other Fourier analysis components (spherical R min, spherical eccentricity, central, peripheral regular astigmatism, and maximum decentration) (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: This study shows that epithelium-disruption CXL is superior to epithelium-removal CXL regarding the short-term changes in pachymetry and corneal irregularity. Other evaluated parameters were comparable between the two techniques.
METHODS: In this double masked randomized clinical trial, each eye of 34 patients with bilateral keratoconus was randomly allocated to either the epithelium-removal or epithelium-disruption CXL treatment groups. Ocular examination, refraction, uncorrected and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (UCVA and BSCVA, respectively) measurements, and Pentacam imaging (keratometry, pachymetry, and Fourier analysis) were performed at baseline and at six-month follow-up period.
RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 23.3 ± 3.6 years. The preoperative thickness of the thinnest point was 459.20 ± 37.40 µm and 455.80 ± 32.70 µm in the epithelium-removal and epithelial-disruption CXL groups, respectively (P > 0.05). The corresponding figures were 433.50 ± 33.50 µm and 451.90 ± 39.70 µm, respectively, six months after the treatment (P = 0.0001). Irregularity component of the fourier analysis was 0.030 ± 0.016 µm in the epithelium-removal group and 0.028 ± 0.011 µm in the epithelium-disruption group preoperatively (P > 0.05). This measurement was 0.031 ± 0.016 µm and 0.024 ± 0.009 µm, respectively at month 6 (P = 0.04). The epithelium-disruption CXL group had better results in terms of the thickness of the thinnest point and the irregularity component as compared to the epithelium-removal group. The two study groups were comparable in spherical equivalent, mean keratometry, UCVA, BSCVA, or other Fourier analysis components (spherical R min, spherical eccentricity, central, peripheral regular astigmatism, and maximum decentration) (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: This study shows that epithelium-disruption CXL is superior to epithelium-removal CXL regarding the short-term changes in pachymetry and corneal irregularity. Other evaluated parameters were comparable between the two techniques.