Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2020
Evaluating the Ectasia Risk Score System in Cancelled Laser In Situ Keratomileusis Candidates.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Mohamadpour Mehrdad, Khorrami-Nejad Masoud, Kiarudi Mohammad Yaser, Khosravi Keivan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ectasia risk score system in cancelled laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) candidates at an academic hospital.
METHODS: LASIK candidates who had been cancelled by a surgeon considering the patient age, preoperative central corneal thickness, residual stromal bed thickness, or preoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent were retrospectively reviewed, and their Randleman ectasia risk score system score was calculated.
RESULTS: The mean ectasia score of 194 eyes (97 patients) was 4.5 ± 2.67; 40 (20.6%), 46 (23.7%), and 108 (55.7%) eyes were classified as low-, moderate-, and high-risk eyes, respectively. The topography was abnormal in 69% of the patients. The mean manifest refraction spherical equivalent, central corneal thickness, and estimated residual stromal bed thickness were 4 (+0.50 to -15.50) diopters, 520 (439 to 608) µm, and 312.38 (61.5 to 424.12) µm, respectively. The main cause of cancellation in low- and moderate-risk patients (86 eyes) was the presence of unstable refractive error in the past year.
CONCLUSION: Although promising, some other criteria, such as stable refraction, should be added to this scoring system to achieve greater practicality since a main cause of cancelling LASIK candidates in this study was the presence of unstable refraction.
METHODS: LASIK candidates who had been cancelled by a surgeon considering the patient age, preoperative central corneal thickness, residual stromal bed thickness, or preoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent were retrospectively reviewed, and their Randleman ectasia risk score system score was calculated.
RESULTS: The mean ectasia score of 194 eyes (97 patients) was 4.5 ± 2.67; 40 (20.6%), 46 (23.7%), and 108 (55.7%) eyes were classified as low-, moderate-, and high-risk eyes, respectively. The topography was abnormal in 69% of the patients. The mean manifest refraction spherical equivalent, central corneal thickness, and estimated residual stromal bed thickness were 4 (+0.50 to -15.50) diopters, 520 (439 to 608) µm, and 312.38 (61.5 to 424.12) µm, respectively. The main cause of cancellation in low- and moderate-risk patients (86 eyes) was the presence of unstable refractive error in the past year.
CONCLUSION: Although promising, some other criteria, such as stable refraction, should be added to this scoring system to achieve greater practicality since a main cause of cancelling LASIK candidates in this study was the presence of unstable refraction.