Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2009
Biomechanical and tomographic analysis of unilateral 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.
Fontes Bruno M, Ambrósio Renato, Salomão Marcella, Velarde Guillermo C, Nosé Walton
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare tomographic, clinical, and biomechanical data of patients with unilateral keratoconus and healthy controls.
METHODS: Observational, case-control study. Complete clinical eye examination was followed by topographic (ATLAS), tomographic (Pentacam), and biomechanical (Ocular Response Analyzer) evaluation. Cases were sex- and age-matched with healthy individuals for controls.
RESULTS: Four patients had unilateral keratoconus, and eight healthy patients served as controls. Central corneal thickness was 508±16 μm in the keratoconus group, 531±12.7 μm in the fellow eye group, and 528.6±40.7 μm in the control group (P>.125, all comparisons). Central keratometry was 43.70±2.70 diopters (D) in the keratoconus group, 42.84±1.43 D in the fellow eye group, and 43.81±1.94 D in the control group (P>.45, all comparisons). Corneal astigmatism was 3.30±2.24 D in the keratoconus group, 1.38±1.49 D in the fellow eye group, and 1.34±1.13 D in the control group (P=.037 between the keratoconus and control groups; P=.25 between the keratoconus and fellow eye groups). Corneal hysteresis was 8.13±2 mmHg in the keratoconus group, 8.96±0.86 mmHg in the fellow eye group, and 9.89±1.33 mmHg in the control group (P>.064, all comparisons). Corneal resistance factor was 7.96±2.43 mmHg in the keratoconus group, 8.92±1.39 mmHg in the fellow eye group, and 9.90±2.24 mmHg in the control group (P>.33, all comparisons).
CONCLUSIONS: Corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor values were not statistically different among the groups; however, a trend for lower values was found for keratoconus and fellow eyes compared to controls. Data should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample.
METHODS: Observational, case-control study. Complete clinical eye examination was followed by topographic (ATLAS), tomographic (Pentacam), and biomechanical (Ocular Response Analyzer) evaluation. Cases were sex- and age-matched with healthy individuals for controls.
RESULTS: Four patients had unilateral keratoconus, and eight healthy patients served as controls. Central corneal thickness was 508±16 μm in the keratoconus group, 531±12.7 μm in the fellow eye group, and 528.6±40.7 μm in the control group (P>.125, all comparisons). Central keratometry was 43.70±2.70 diopters (D) in the keratoconus group, 42.84±1.43 D in the fellow eye group, and 43.81±1.94 D in the control group (P>.45, all comparisons). Corneal astigmatism was 3.30±2.24 D in the keratoconus group, 1.38±1.49 D in the fellow eye group, and 1.34±1.13 D in the control group (P=.037 between the keratoconus and control groups; P=.25 between the keratoconus and fellow eye groups). Corneal hysteresis was 8.13±2 mmHg in the keratoconus group, 8.96±0.86 mmHg in the fellow eye group, and 9.89±1.33 mmHg in the control group (P>.064, all comparisons). Corneal resistance factor was 7.96±2.43 mmHg in the keratoconus group, 8.92±1.39 mmHg in the fellow eye group, and 9.90±2.24 mmHg in the control group (P>.33, all comparisons).
CONCLUSIONS: Corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor values were not statistically different among the groups; however, a trend for lower values was found for keratoconus and fellow eyes compared to controls. Data should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample.