Central corneal thickness and corneal volume changes in eyes with and without pseudoexfoliation after uneventful phacoemulsification
- 95 Downloads
To investigate the effects of uneventful phacoemulsification on central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal volume (CV) in pseudoexfoliative eyes during a 3 months postoperative period and compare these changes to eyes without pseudoexfoliation (PEX) syndrome. Another purpose of this study was to compare the CCT measurements done by ultrasound pachymetry (UP) with those done by the Oculus Pentacam.
Material and method
A total of 42 eyes of 42 consecutive patients with cataracts and PEX syndrome that underwent uneventful phacoemulsification were enrolled in this prospective study. A control group of 42 eyes of 42 patients with cataracts/without PEX was employed for comparison. CV and CCT measurements were obtained preoperatively and at 1 and 3 months postoperatively with the Pentacam. CCT values were also measured with UP. T test and Wilcoxon sign test were used to compare the variables.
The mean age of the patients was 72.1 ± 8.3 and 66.6 ± 9.6 years in PEX and non-PEX group, respectively. In both groups, there were no significant differences between preoperative and postoperative CV (Fig. 1), CCT by the Pentacam (Fig. 2) and CCT by UP (Fig. 3) values (p > 0.05). CCT measurements obtained by two devices were also similar, and there were no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Changes in CV and CCT remained stabile at 3 months postoperatively.
Eyes with and without PEX syndrome exhibit similar corneal features before and after phacoemulsification. A surgery in early stages of cataracts in PEX syndrome, not only provides a non-complicated surgery, but also leads to a less damaged cornea similar to eyes without PEX.
KeywordsCentral corneal thickness Corneal volume Phacoemulsification Pseudoexfoliation The Pentacam
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (name the institution/committee) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 5.Katz LJ, Zangalli C, Clifford R, Leiby B (2013) Combined cataract and glaucoma surgery: the effect of pupil enlargement on surgical outcomes (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 111:155–168Google Scholar
- 10.Rajeev J, Grewal SPS (2009) Pentacam: principle and clinical applications. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 3(2):20–32Google Scholar
- 11.Grewal SPS (2001) Evaluation of anterior segment pathologies using pentacam. Highlights Ophtalmol 36(1):17–20Google Scholar
- 20.Özcura F, Aydin S, Dayanir V (2011) Central corneal thickness and corneal curvature in pseudoexfoliation syndrome with and without glaucoma. J Glaucoma 20:410–413Google Scholar
- 22.Tomaszewski BT, Zalewska R, Mariak Z (2014) Evaluation of the endothelial cell density and the central corneal thickness in pseudoexfoliation syndrome. J Ophthalmol 2014:123683Google Scholar
- 26.Demircan S, Atas M, Yurtsever Y (2015) Effect of torsional mode phacoemulsification on cornea in eyes with/without pseudoexfoliation. Int J Ophthalmol 8(2):281–287Google Scholar
- 30.Rashid RF, Farhood QK (2016) Measurement of central corneal thickness by ultrasonic pachymeter and oculus pentacam in patients with well-controlled glaucoma: hospital-based comparative study. Clin Ophthalmol 10:359–364Google Scholar