Assessment of the specificity of corvis biomechanical index-laser vision correction (CBI-LVC) in stable corneas after phototherapeutic keratectomy.
Corneal Biomechanics
Ectasia
Keratocon
PTK
Journal
International ophthalmology
ISSN: 1573-2630
Titre abrégé: Int Ophthalmol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7904294
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
15
09
2022
accepted:
27
07
2023
medline:
26
9
2023
pubmed:
30
8
2023
entrez:
29
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Corvis Biomechanical Index-Laser Vision Correction (CBI-LVC) is a biomechanical index to detect ectasia in post-refractive surgery patients (PRK, LASIK, SMILE). This study aims to evaluate the distribution of the CBI-LVC in stable patients who underwent Phototherapeutic Keratectomy (PTK) compared to PRK patients. Patients who underwent PRK and PTK performed between 2000 and 2018 in Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy and remained stable for at least four years post-surgery were included. All eyes were examined with the Corvis ST (Oculus, Germany), whose output allows the calculation of the CBI-LVC. The distribution and specificity of the CBI-LVC in the two populations were estimated using a Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test and compared. 175 eyes of 148 patients were included (85 eyes of 50 PTK patients and 90 eyes of 90 PRK patients). The distribution of CBI-LVC in the two groups showed a minor difference, with a median value in PRK patients of 0.000 (95% CI 0.000; 0.002) and 0.008 (95% CI 0.000; 0.037) in PTK patients (Mann-Whitney U test p = 0.023). The statistical analysis showed that the CBI-LVC provided a specificity of 92.22% in the PRK group, while in the PTK group it was 82.35%. Nevertheless, this difference was not statistically significant (Chi-squared test with Yates, p = 0.080). CBI-LVC provided similar specificity in stable PTK patients compared to those who underwent PRK. These results suggest that the CBI-LVC could be a useful tool to aid corneal surgeons in managing PTK patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37644351
doi: 10.1007/s10792-023-02840-w
pii: 10.1007/s10792-023-02840-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4289-4295Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
Références
Spadea L, Cantera E, Cortes M, Conocchia NE, Stewart CW (2012) Corneal ectasia after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis: a long-term study. Clin Ophthalmol 6:1801–1813. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S37249
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S37249
pubmed: 23152659
pmcid: 3497457
Woodward MA et al (2008) Visual rehabilitation and outcomes for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:383–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.10.025
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.10.025
pubmed: 18299061
pmcid: 3750749
Seiler T, Quurke AW (1998) Iatrogenic keratectasia after LASIK in a case of forme fruste keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:1007–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(98)80057-6
doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(98)80057-6
pubmed: 9682124
Roszkowska AM, Sommario MS, Urso M, Aragona P (2017) Post photorefractive keratectomy corneal ectasia. Int J Ophthalmol 10:315–317. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2017.02.22
doi: 10.18240/ijo.2017.02.22
pubmed: 28251095
pmcid: 5313559
Moshirfar M et al (2017) Ectasia following small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE): a review of the literature. Clin Ophthalmol 11:1683–1688. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S147011
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S147011
pubmed: 28979096
pmcid: 5608083
Ambrosio R Jr (2019) Post-LASIK ectasia: twenty years of a conundrum. Semin Ophthalmol 34:66–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2019.1569075
doi: 10.1080/08820538.2019.1569075
pubmed: 30664391
Wolle MA, Randleman JB, Woodward MA (2016) Complications of refractive surgery: ectasia after refractive surgery. Int Ophthalmol Clin 56:127–139. https://doi.org/10.1097/IIO.0000000000000102
doi: 10.1097/IIO.0000000000000102
pubmed: 26938343
Randleman JB, Woodward M, Lynn MJ, Stulting RD (2008) Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. Ophthalmology 115:37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.073
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.073
pubmed: 17624434
Santhiago MR (2016) Percent tissue altered and corneal ectasia. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 27:311–315. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000276
doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000276
pubmed: 27096376
Giri P, Azar DT (2017) Risk profiles of ectasia after keratorefractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 28:337–342. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000383
doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000383
pubmed: 28594648
pmcid: 6444927
Esporcatte LPG et al (2020) Biomechanical diagnostics of the cornea. Eye Vis (Lond). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-020-0174-x
doi: 10.1186/s40662-020-0174-x
pubmed: 32042837
Ambrosio R Jr et al (2017) Corneal Biomechanics in ectatic diseases: refractive surgery implications. Open Ophthalmol J 11:176–193. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874364101711010176
doi: 10.2174/1874364101711010176
pubmed: 28932334
Ambrosio R Jr et al (2016) Ectasia detection by the assessment of corneal biomechanics. Cornea 35:e18-20. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000000875
doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000875
pubmed: 27158811
Salomão MQ et al (2020) The role of corneal biomechanics for the evaluation of ectasia patients Int. J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17062113
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17062113
Vinciguerra R, Ambrosio R, Wang Y et al (2023) Detection of keratoconus with a new corvis biomechanical index optimized for chinese populations. Am J Ophthalmol 252:182–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2023.04.002
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2023.04.002
pubmed: 37059320
Ambrósio R Jr, Machado AP, Leão E et al (2023) Optimized artificial intelligence for enhanced ectasia detection using scheimpflug-based corneal tomography and biomechanical data. Am J Ophthalmol 251:126–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2022.12.016
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2022.12.016
pubmed: 36549584
Ambrosio R Jr et al (2017) Integration of scheimpflug-based corneal tomography and biomechanical assessments for enhancing ectasia detection. J Refract Surg 33:434–443. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20170426-02
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20170426-02
pubmed: 28681902
Vinciguerra R et al (2016) Detection of keratoconus with a new biomechanical index. J Refract Surg 32:803–810. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20160629-01
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20160629-01
pubmed: 27930790
Vinciguerra R, Ambrosio R Jr, Roberts CJ, Azzolini C, Vinciguerra P (2017) Biomechanical characterization of subclinical keratoconus without topographic or tomographic abnormalities. J Refract Surg 33:399–407. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20170213-01
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20170213-01
pubmed: 28586501
Wang B et al (2016) Comparison of the change in posterior corneal elevation and corneal biomechanical parameters after small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK for high myopia correction. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 39:191–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2016.01.007
doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2016.01.007
pubmed: 26852167
Vinciguerra R et al (2021) Detection of postlaser vision correction ectasia with a new combined biomechanical index. J Cataract Refract Surg 47:1314–1318. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000629
doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000629
pubmed: 33769761
Nagpal R et al (2020) Phototherapeutic keratectomy. Surv Ophthalmol 65:79–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2019.07.002
doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2019.07.002
pubmed: 31306672
Rapuano CJ (1996) Excimer laser phototherapeutic keratectomy. Int Ophthalmol Clin 36:127–136. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004397-199603640-00017
doi: 10.1097/00004397-199603640-00017
pubmed: 9021467
Miyata K, Takahashi T, Tomidokoro A, Ono K, Oshika T (2001) Iatrogenic keratectasia after phototherapeutic keratectomy. Br J Ophthalmol 85:247–248. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.85.2.238j
doi: 10.1136/bjo.85.2.238j
pubmed: 11225582
Vinciguerra R et al (2016) Influence of pachymetry and intraocular pressure on dynamic corneal response parameters in healthy patients. J Refract Surg 32:550–561. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20160524-01
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20160524-01
pubmed: 27505316
Roberts CJ et al (2017) Introduction of two novel stiffness parameters and interpretation of air puff-induced biomechanical deformation parameters with a dynamic scheimpflug analyzer. J Refract Surg 33:266–273. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20161221-03
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20161221-03
pubmed: 28407167
Dupps WJ Jr, Wilson SE (2006) Biomechanics and wound healing in the cornea. Exp Eye Res 83:709–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2006.03.015
doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2006.03.015
pubmed: 16720023
pmcid: 2691611
Feizi S, Karjou Z, Abbasi H, Javadi MA, Azari AA (2020) Characterization of In Vivo biomechanical properties in macular corneal dystrophy. Am J Ophthalmol 215:8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2020.03.003
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.03.003
pubmed: 32205123
Marcos-Fernandez MA, Tabernero SS, Herreras JM, Galarreta DJ (2018) Impact of herpetic stromal immune keratitis in corneal biomechanics and innervation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256:155–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-017-3826-3
doi: 10.1007/s00417-017-3826-3
pubmed: 29082447