Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2009
Biomechanical properties of keratoconus suspect eyes.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Saad Alain, Lteif Yara, Azan Elodie, Gatinel Damien
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Measuring corneal biomechanical properties may help detect keratoconus suspect corneas and eliminate the risk of ectasia after LASIK.
METHODS: Data of 504 eyes separated into three groups were retrospectively reviewed: normal (n = 252), keratoconus suspect (n = 80), and keratoconus (n = 172). Corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) were measured with an ocular biomechanics analyzer.
RESULTS: Mean corneal hysteresis was 10.6 +/- 1.4 (SD) mm Hg in the normal group, compared with 10.0 +/- 1.6 mm Hg in the keratoconus suspect group and 8.1 +/- 1.4 mm Hg in the keratoconus group. The mean CRF was 10.6 +/- 1.6 mm Hg in the normal group compared with 9.7 +/- 1.7 in the keratoconus suspect group and 7.1 +/- 1.6 mm Hg in the keratoconus group. Mean CH and CRF were significantly different between the three groups (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: CH and CRF alone cannot be used to identify keratoconus suspect corneas. Analyzing signal curves obtained with the biomechanics analyzer may provide additional valuable information for selecting qualified patients for refractive surgery.
METHODS: Data of 504 eyes separated into three groups were retrospectively reviewed: normal (n = 252), keratoconus suspect (n = 80), and keratoconus (n = 172). Corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) were measured with an ocular biomechanics analyzer.
RESULTS: Mean corneal hysteresis was 10.6 +/- 1.4 (SD) mm Hg in the normal group, compared with 10.0 +/- 1.6 mm Hg in the keratoconus suspect group and 8.1 +/- 1.4 mm Hg in the keratoconus group. The mean CRF was 10.6 +/- 1.6 mm Hg in the normal group compared with 9.7 +/- 1.7 in the keratoconus suspect group and 7.1 +/- 1.6 mm Hg in the keratoconus group. Mean CH and CRF were significantly different between the three groups (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: CH and CRF alone cannot be used to identify keratoconus suspect corneas. Analyzing signal curves obtained with the biomechanics analyzer may provide additional valuable information for selecting qualified patients for refractive surgery.