Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Could the percent tissue altered (PTA) index be considered as a unique factor in ectasia risk assessment?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, predictability and stability of the percent tissue altered (PTA) formula in post-LASIK (laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis) ectasia risk assessment.

Methods

One hundred and ninety-three eyes from 104 patients with low to moderate myopia that underwent femtosecond LASIK were included in this retrospective, observational and longitudinal study. Seventy-eight eyes were classified in the higher-PTA (> 40%) group and 115 eyes in the lower-PTA (< 40%) group. Spherical manifest refraction, cylinder manifest refraction, logMAR and Snellen previous corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), anterior face Baiocchi Calossi Versaci index (BCVf) and posterior face (BCVb), central corneal thickness (CCT), estimated residual stromal bed (RSB), spherical aberration (SA) and root mean square (RMS) were reported. All patients were followed up for 4 years.

Results

In the higher-PTA group, 97% of eyes reported UDVA 20/20 or better, and in the lower-PTA group, all eyes achieved 20/20 or better. No group reported decreased visual acuity. The higher-PTA group obtained 55% of eyes within ± 0.50 D and 90% within ± 1.00 D; and the lower-PTA group obtained 63% of eyes within ± 0.50 D and 90% within ± 1.00 D. Both groups showed a refraction correction of 0.50 D or more in 36% and 31% of eyes, in the higher-PTA and the lower-PTA groups, respectively.

Conclusion

Percent tissue altered index should not be considered as a unique variable in post-LASIK ectasia risk assessment. Ectasia susceptibility screening should integrate tomography and biomechanical variables in order to help us to decide any refractive treatment choice and increasing refractive surgery safety.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Data available on demand.

References

  1. Chan C, Saad A, Randleman JB et al (2018) Analysis of cases and accuracy of 3 risk scoring systems in predicting ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 44:979–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.05.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bohac M, Koncarevic M, Pasalic A et al (2018) Incidence and clinical characteristics of post LASIK ectasia: a review of over 30,000 LASIK cases. Semin Ophthalmol 33:869–877. https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2018.1539183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pallikaris IG, Kymionis GD, Astyrakakis NI (2001) Corneal ectasia induced by laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:1796–1802. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(01)01090-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Chua D, Htoon HM, Lim L et al (2019) Eighteen-year prospective audit of LASIK outcomes for myopia in 53 731 eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 103:1228–1234. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Randleman JB, Russell B, Ward MA et al (2003) Risk factors and prognosis for corneal ectasia after LASIK. Ophthalmology 110:267–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01727-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Randleman JB, Dupps WJ, Santhiago MR et al (2015) Screening for keratoconus and related ectatic corneal disorders. Cornea 34:e20–e22. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000000500

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Randleman JB (2010) Evaluating risk factors for ectasia: What is the goal of assessing risk? J Refract Surg 26:236–237. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20100318-02

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Santhiago MR, Giacomin NT, Smadja D, Bechara SJ (2016) Ectasia risk factors in refractive surgery. Clin Ophthalmol 10:713–720. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S51313

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Comaish IF, Lawless M, (2002) Progressive post-LASIK keratectasia: Biomechanical instability or chronic disease process? J Cataract Refract Surg 28:2206–2213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-3350(02)01698-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lopes BT, Ramos IC, Salomão MQ et al (2018) Enhanced tomographic assessment to detect corneal ectasia based on artificial intelligence. Am J Ophthalmol 195:223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2018.08.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Santhiago MR, Smadja D, Gomes BF et al (2014) Association between the percent tissue altered and post-laser in situ keratomileusis ectasia in eyes with normal preoperative topography. Am J Ophthalmol 158:87–95.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2014.04.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Santhiago MR, Smajda D, Wilson SE, Randleman JB (2015) Relative contribution of flap thickness and ablation depth to the percentage of tissue altered in ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:2493–2500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.05.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Santhiago MR, Smadja D, Wilson SE et al (2015) Role of percent tissue altered on ectasia after LASIK in eyes with suspicious topography. J Refract Surg 31:258–265. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20150319-05

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Santhiago MR, Wilson SE, Hallahan KM et al (2014) Changes in custom biomechanical variables after femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:918–928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.11.030

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Safarzadeh M, Nasiri N (2016) Anterior segment characteristics in normal and keratoconus eyes evaluated with a combined Scheimpflug/Placido corneal imaging device. J Curr Ophthalmol 28:106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joco.2016.06.003

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Milla M, Piñero DP, Amparo F, Alió JL (2011) Pachymetric measurements with a new Scheimpflug photography-based system: intraobserver repeatability and agreement with optical coherence tomography pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:310–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.08.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Arbelaez MC, Versaci F, Vestri G et al (2012) Use of a support vector machine for keratoconus and subclinical keratoconus detection by topographic and tomographic data. Ophthalmology 119:2231–2238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.06.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Koch DD, Kohnen T, Obstbaum SA, Rosen ES (1998) Format for reporting refractive surgical data. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:285–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(98)80305-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shetty R, Rao H, Khamar P et al (2017) Keratoconus screening indices and their diagnostic ability to distinguish normal from ectatic corneas. Am J Ophthalmol 181:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.06.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dupps WJ, 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ambrósio R (2019) Post-LASIK ectasia: twenty years of a conundrum. Semin Ophthalmol 34:66–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2019.1569075

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gatinel D, Saad A, Binder PS (2018) Comparison of the effect of LASIK parameters on the percent tissue altered (1-dimensional metric) versus percent volume altered (3-dimensional metric). J Cataract Refract Surg 44:897–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.04.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ferreira-Mendes J, Lopes BT, Faria-Correia F et al (2019) Enhanced ectasia detection using corneal tomography and biomechanics. Am J Ophthalmol 197:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2018.08.054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José-María Sánchez-González.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no competing interest.

Ethics approval

This study was conducted in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration and obtained Institutional Review Board approval.

Consent to participate

All patients included in this work were adequately informed verbally and in writing of the benefits, characteristics and risks of the surgeries. All patients signed an informed consent prior to the surgery and after the interview performed with the ophthalmologist.

Consent for publication

All authors consent publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rocha-de-Lossada, C., Sánchez-González, JM., Rachwani-Anil, R. et al. Could the percent tissue altered (PTA) index be considered as a unique factor in ectasia risk assessment?. Int Ophthalmol 40, 3285–3294 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01514-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01514-1

Keywords

Navigation