Advertisement

Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 85–89 | Cite as

Corneal biomechanical properties in eyes with no previous surgery, with previous penetrating keratoplasty and with deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty

  • Banu Torun AcarEmail author
  • Mehmet Orcun Akdemir
  • Suphi Acar
Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the biomechanical properties of the cornea in eyes with no previous surgery, with keratoconus with previous penetrating keratoplasty (PK) and with keratoconus with previous deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) using the Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA).

Methods

One hundred twenty eyes of 120 patients were included in this prospective comparative study. Forty eyes were with no previous ocular surgery (group 1), 40 eyes were with previous PK for keratoconus (group 2), and 40 eyes were with previous DALK for keratoconus (group 3). Corneal hysteresis (CH) and the corneal resistance factor (CRF) were measured with ORA.

Results

The CH and CRF values in group 2 were significantly lower than in group 1 and group 3 (p = 0.001). The CH and CRF values were similar in group 1 and group 3. There was no statistically significant difference between group 1 and 3.

Conclusion

Although the post-PK keratoconus cornea has weaker biomechanical properties, post-DALK keratoconus cornea is similar to normal cornea. A cornea weakened by keratoconus can be strengthened with lamellar keratoplasty.

Keywords

Corneal hysteresis Corneal resistance factor Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty Keratoconus Penetrating keratoplasty 

References

  1. 1.
    Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus (Review). Surv Ophthalmol. 1998;42:297–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim KH, Choi SH, Ahn K, Chung ES, Chung TY. Comparison of refractive changes after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2011;55:93–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li X, Rabinowitz YS, Rasheed K, Yang H. Longitudinal study of the normal eyes in unilateral keratoconus patients. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:440–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yenerel NM, Kucumen RB, Gorgun E. Changes in corneal biomechanics in patients with keratoconus after penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2010;29:1247–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fontes BM, Ambrósio R Jr, Jardim D, Velarde GC, Nosé W. Corneal biomechanical metrics and anterior segment parameters in mild keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:673–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reinhart WJ, Musch DC, Jacobs DS, Lee WB, Kaufman SC, Schtein RM. Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty as an alternative to penetrating keratoplasty a report by American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:209–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Javadi MA, Feizi S, Yazdani S, Mirbabaee F. Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus. A clinical trial. Cornea. 2010;29:365–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:156–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feizi S, Einollahi B, Yazdani S, Hashemloo A. Graft biomechanical properties after penetrating keratoplasty in keratoconus. Cornea. 2012;31:855–8Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Bhojwani R, Mantry S, Cunliffe I. Assessment of the biomechanical properties of the cornea with the ocular response analyzer in normal and keratoconic eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:3026–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anwar M, Teichmann KD. Big-bubble technique to bare Descemet’s membrane in anterior lamellar keratoplasty. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:398–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Troutman RC, Lawless MA. Penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus. Cornea. 1987;6:298–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lim L, Pseudovs K, Coster DJ. Penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus: visual outcome and success. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1125–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Melles GR, Lander F, Rietvelt FJ, Remeijer L, Beekhuis WH, Binder PS. A new surgical technique for deep stromal, anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:327–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Al-Torbak AA, Al-Motowa S, Al-Assiri A, Al-Kharashi S, Al-Shahwan S, Al-Mezaine H, et al. Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for keratoconus. Cornea. 2006;25:408–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shin JY, Choi SJ, Oh JY, Kim MK, Lee JH, Wee WR. Evaluation of corneal biomechanical properties following penetrating keratoplasty using the ocular response analyzer. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2010;24:139–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Edmund C. Assessment of an elastic model in the pathogenesis of keratoconus. Acta Ophthalmol. 1987;65:545–50.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Foster CS, Yamamato GK. Ocular rigidity in keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 1978;86:802–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edmund C. Corneal rigidity and ocular rigidity in normal and keratoconic eyes. Acta Ophthalmol. 1988;66:134–40.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hartstein J, Becker B. Research into the pathogenesis of keratoconus: a new syndrome low ocular rigidity, contact lenses and keratoconus. Arch Ophthalmol. 1970;84:728–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ortiz D, Pinero D, Shabayek MH, Arnalich-Montiel F, Alió JL. Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33:1371–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Qazi MA, Sanderson JP, Mahmoud AM, Yoon EY, Robetrs CJ, Pepose JS. Postoperative changes in intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanical metrics-Laser in situ keratomileusis versus laser assisted subepithelial keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35:1774–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Ohmoto F. The changes in corneal biomechanical parameters after phototherapeutic keratectomy in eyes with granular corneal dystrophy. Eye. 2009;23:1790–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Randleman JB, Russell B, Ward MA, Thompson KP, Stulting RD. Risk factors and prognosis for corneal ectasia after LASIK. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:267–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wittig-Silva C, Whiting M, Lamoureux E, Lindsay RG, Sullivan LJ, Snibson GR. A randomized controlled trial of corneal collagen cross-linking in progressive keratoconus: preliminary results. J Refract Surg. 2008;24:720–5.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raiskup-Wolf F, Hoyer A, Spoerl E, Pillunat LE. Collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and ultraviolet—a light in keratoconus: long-term results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:796–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vinciguerra P, Albe E, Mahmoud MM, Trazza S, Hafezi F, Roberts CJ. Intra- and postoperative variation in ocular response analyzer parameters in keratoconic eyes after corneal cross-linking. J Refract Surg. 2010;26:669–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jafarinasab MR, Sepehr F, Javadi MA, Hashemloo A. Graft biomechanical properties after penetrating keratoplasty versus deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Curr Eye Res. 2011;36:417–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hosny M, Hassaballa MAM, Shalaby A. Changes in corneal biomechanics following different keratoplasty techniques. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:767–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Banu Torun Acar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mehmet Orcun Akdemir
    • 2
  • Suphi Acar
    • 1
  1. 1.Ophthalmology Clinic, Department of OphthalmologyHaydarpasa Numune Education and Research HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Ophthalmology ClinicErzurum Education and Research HospitalErzurumTurkey

Personalised recommendations