International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 275–280 | Cite as

Central corneal thickness and corneal volume changes in eyes with and without pseudoexfoliation after uneventful phacoemulsification

  • Yonca AsfurogluEmail author
  • Ozlem Evren Kemer
Original Paper



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.


Central 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.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Quiroga L, Lansingh VC, Samudio M, Peña FY, Carter MJ (2010) Characteristics of the corneal endothelium and pseudoexfoliation syndrome in patients with senile cataract. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 38(5):449–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Naumann GO (2006) Ocular and systemic pseudoexfoliation syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol 141(5):921–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sein J, Galor A, Sheth A, Kruh J, Pasquale LR, Karp CL (2013) Exfoliation syndrome: new genetic and pathophysiologic insights. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 24(2):167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belovay GW, Varma DK, Ahmed II (2010) Cataract surgery in pseudoexfoliation syndrome. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 21(1):25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Shingleton BJ, Crandall AS, Ahmed II (2009) Pseudoexfoliation and the cataract surgeon: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative issues related to intraocular pressure, cataract, and intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 35(6):1101–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Naumann GOH, Schlötzer-Schrehardt U (2000) Keratopathy in pseudoexfoliation syndrome as a cause of corneal endothelial decompensation: a clinicopathologic study. Ophthalmology 107:1111–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rabsilber TM, Khoramnia R, Auffarth GU (2006) Anterior chamber measurements using Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:456–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barkana Y, Gerber Y, Elbaz U, Schwartz S, Ken-Dror G, Avni I et al (2005) Central corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam Scheimpflug system, optical low coherence reflectometry pachymeter, and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:1729–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rajeev J, Grewal SPS (2009) Pentacam: principle and clinical applications. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 3(2):20–32Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grewal SPS (2001) Evaluation of anterior segment pathologies using pentacam. Highlights Ophtalmol 36(1):17–20Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bourne WM, Kaufman HE (1976) Specular microscopy of human corneal endothelium in vivo. Am J Ophthalmol 81:319–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laing RA, Sandstrom MM, Leibowitz HM (1979) Clinical specular microscopy. II. Qualitative evaluation of corneal endothelial photomicrographs. Arch Ophthalmol 97:1720–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suzuki H, Oki K, Takahashi K, Shiwa T, Takahashi H (2007) Functional evaluation of corneal endothelium by combined measurement of corneal volume alteration and cell density after phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:2077–2082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Doganay S, Tasar A, Çankaya C, Fırat PG, Yologlu S (2012) Evaluation of Pentacam-Scheimpflug imaging of anterior segment parameters in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome and pseudoexfoliative glaucoma. Clin Exp Optom. 95:218–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hayashi K, Manabe S, Yoshimura K, Kondo H (2013) Corneal endothelial damage after cataract surgery in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome. J Cataract Refract Surg 39(6):881–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wong MM, Shukla AN, Munir WM (2014) Correlation of corneal thickness and volume with intraoperative phacoemulsification parameters using Scheimpflug imaging and optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 40(12):2067–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suzuki H, Takahashi H, Hori J, Hiraoka M, Igarashi T, Shiwa T (2006) Phacoemulsification associated corneal damage evaluated by corneal volume. Am J Ophthalmol 142(3):525–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jun YL, Kim JY, Joo CK (2011) Early changes in corneal edema following torsional phacoemulsification using anterior segment optical coherence tomography and Scheimpflug photography. Jpn J Ophthalmol 55:196–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Kırgız A, Akdemir MO, Kaldırım H et al (2014) Psödoeksfoliasyon Sendromlu Olguların Santral korneal Kalınlıklarının Normal Bireylerle Karşılaştırılması. İstanbul Med J 15:32–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Acar BT, Buttanrı İB, Sevim MŞ, Esen D, Acar S (2010) Evaluation of anterior segment parameters in pseudoexfoliation syndrome patients. Turk J Ophthalmol 40:217–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ringvold A (1994) Corneal endothelial involvement in pseudoexfoliation syndrome. Arch Ophthalmol 112:297–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Freitas Valbon B, Ventura MP, da Silva RS, Canedo AL, Velarde GC, Ambrósio R Jr (2012) Central corneal thickness and biomechanical changes after clear corneal phacoemulsification. J Refract Surg 28(3):215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 27.
    Gao L, Fan H, Cheng AC, Wang Z, Lam DS (2006) The effects of eye drops on corneal thickness in adult myopia. Cornea 25(4):404–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim HY, Budenz DL, Lee PS, Feuer WJ, Barton K (2008) Comparison of central corneal thickness using anterior segment optical coherence tomography vs ultrasound pachymetry. Am J Ophtalmol 145(2):228–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Uçakhan OO, Ozkan M, Kanpolat A (2006) Corneal thickness measurements in normal and keratoconic eyes: pentacam comprehensive eye scanner versus noncontact specular microscopy and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 32(6):970–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Osmancik State HospitalOsmancikTurkey
  2. 2.University of Health Sciences, Numune Education and Research HospitalAltindagTurkey

Personalised recommendations