International ophthalmology · 2018
Comparison of densitometric profile after deep lamellar keratoplasty with two different techniques for treatment of keratoconus.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Ghoreishi Mohammad, Kashfi Abolfazl, Peyman Mohammadreza, Hanjani Shahriar, Mohammadinia Mohaddese, Straiko Mike
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare densitometric outcome of two techniques of deep lamellar keratoplasty using Pentacam HR corneal densitometry software.
METHODS: Postoperative outcomes of 31 patients with big bubble (BB) and 28 patients with Melles (M) surgery for the treatment of keratoconus were evaluated. Data were gathered at least 3 months after the removal of all sutures including demographic data, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), refraction and endothelial cell count. Moreover, the Scheimpflug images were taken by Pentacam® HR to assess keratometric profile, densitometric outcomes in different depths and zones of the cornea and central corneal thickness. Anterior segment OCT was performed in ten cases of M group.
RESULTS: Thirty-one eyes with BB and 27 eyes M surgery were enrolled. Comparison of densitometric profile between groups revealed no statistical significance in zone 0-2 mm, zone 2-6 mm and zone 10-12 mm in all depths (all P values > 0.05). Zone 6-10 mm of M group had lower densitometric readings (more transparent) in anterior, central and posterior layers of the cornea in comparison with BB group (all P < 0.05). Also no statistical difference was found in UCDVA, BSCVA, spherical or cylindrical refractive error, and spherical equivalent, keratometric readings, endothelial cell count and central corneal thickness in two groups (all P values > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Densitometric profiles were identical in both methods in visually important zones so as visual and refractive outcomes.
METHODS: Postoperative outcomes of 31 patients with big bubble (BB) and 28 patients with Melles (M) surgery for the treatment of keratoconus were evaluated. Data were gathered at least 3 months after the removal of all sutures including demographic data, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), refraction and endothelial cell count. Moreover, the Scheimpflug images were taken by Pentacam® HR to assess keratometric profile, densitometric outcomes in different depths and zones of the cornea and central corneal thickness. Anterior segment OCT was performed in ten cases of M group.
RESULTS: Thirty-one eyes with BB and 27 eyes M surgery were enrolled. Comparison of densitometric profile between groups revealed no statistical significance in zone 0-2 mm, zone 2-6 mm and zone 10-12 mm in all depths (all P values > 0.05). Zone 6-10 mm of M group had lower densitometric readings (more transparent) in anterior, central and posterior layers of the cornea in comparison with BB group (all P < 0.05). Also no statistical difference was found in UCDVA, BSCVA, spherical or cylindrical refractive error, and spherical equivalent, keratometric readings, endothelial cell count and central corneal thickness in two groups (all P values > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Densitometric profiles were identical in both methods in visually important zones so as visual and refractive outcomes.