Correlation of central and peripheral keratometric parameters after corneal collagen cross-linking in keratoconus patients
- 76 Downloads
To evaluate the difference in the central and peripheral keratometric parameters in patients with keratoconus after corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL).
Forty-eight eyes of 32 patients (18 males, 16–28 years) affected by progressive keratoconus in different stages of evolution underwent CXL using the standard epithelium-off protocol. Corneal thickness and corneal curvature before CXL and after 6 and 12 months using the Sirius tomographer were analyzed. The values of the mean corneal thickness at the corneal apex (CAT), center of the pupil (PCT), thinnest point (CTTL) and along concentric circles of 2, 4, 6, 8, 8.5, 9, 9.5 and 10 mm diameter were evaluated; the values of the mean curvature at the corneal apex and at the points in which the inferior, superior, nasal and temporal meridians crossed the above-mentioned concentric circles were also evaluated.
The mean preoperative values for CAT, PCT and CTTL were 461.4 ± 30.3, 475.3 ± 30.5 and 441 ± 32.0, respectively. The values after 12 months of CXL were 444.6 ± 36.2, 451.6 ± 36.7 and 418.2 ± 41.4. The peripheral corneal thickness at the eight points ranged from 479 to 733 preoperatively. At 12-month post-CXL, the values ranged from 444.6 to 734.1. The mean posterior curvature from apex to periphery ranged from − 4.5 to − 9.1 days preoperatively and from − 4.5 to − 9.2 days at 12 months. These were not statistically significant (ANOVA and unpaired T test).
Our data suggest that CXL over an 8-mm zone can stabilize the peripheral cornea. Longer-term follow-up studies on the peripheral cornea after CXL will provide useful information.
KeywordsKeratoconus Cross-linking Cornea periphery Curvature Thickness
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights statement
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
The study is a retrospective analysis of instrumental examinations carried out previously: For this reason, authors did not ask informed consent.
- 1.Vazirani J, Basu S (2013) Keratoconus: current perspectives. Clin Ophthalmol 7:2019–2030Google Scholar
- 6.Hycl J, Janek M, Valesová L et al (2003) Experimental correction of irregular astigmatism in patients with keratoconus using diode laser thermal keratoplasty. Cesk Slov Oftalmol 59:382–391Google Scholar
- 8.Feizi S, Javadi MA, Rezaei Kanavi M (2012) Recurrent keratoconus in a corneal graft after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 7:328–331Google Scholar
- 29.Prospero Ponce CM, Rocha KM, Smith SD et al (2009) Central and peripheral corneal thickness measured with optical coherence tomography, Scheimpflug imaging, and ultrasound pachymetry in normal, keratoconus-suspect, and post-laser in situ keratomileusis eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1055–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Liu XL, Li PH, Fournie P et al (2015) Investigation of the efficiency of intrastromal ring segments with cross-linking using different sequence and timing for keratoconus. Int J Ophthalmol 8:703–708Google Scholar