Download fulltext HTML
1.
Mohammad Salar Zaheryani S, Bamdad S, Mohaghegh S, Shirvani M. Fourier Analysis of Keratometric Data in Epithelium Removal versus Epithelial Disruption Corneal Cross-linking. JOVR [Internet]. 2020Feb.3 [cited 2024Apr.24];15(1):17–23. Available from: https://knepublishing.com/index.php/JOVR/article/view/5934

https://doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v15i1.5934

statistics

  • 694 Abstract Views
  • 470 PDF Views
  • 0 HTML Views

authors

  • Seyed Mohammad Salar Zaheryani

    Seyed Mohammad Salar Zaheryani

    Poostchi Ophthalmology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
  • Shahram Bamdad

    Shahram Bamdad

    School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
  • Sahar Mohaghegh

    Sahar Mohaghegh

    School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
  • Mohammad Shirvani

    Mohammad Shirvani

    Poostchi Ophthalmology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Published Date

  • Feb 3, 2020
This journal is publishing all the articles under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0.

Fourier Analysis of Keratometric Data in Epithelium Removal versus Epithelial Disruption Corneal Cross-linking

Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research (JOVR) / January–March 2020, Volume 15, Issue 1 / Pages 17–23

Abstract

Purpose: To compare epithelium-removal and epithelium-disruption corneal crosslinking (CXL) methods in Fourier analysis of keratometric data and clinical outcomes.


Methods: In this double-masked randomized clinical trial, each eye of 34 patients with bilateral keratoconus was randomly allocated to either the epithelium-removal or epithelium-disruption CXL treatment groups. Ocular examination, refraction, uncorrected and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (UCVA and BSCVA, respectively) measurements, and Pentacam imaging (keratometry, pachymetry, and Fourier analysis) were performed at baseline and at six-month follow-up period.


Results: Patients’ mean age was 23.3 ± 3.6 years. The preoperative thickness of the thinnest point was 459.20 ± 37.40 μm and 455.80 ± 32.70 μm in the epithelium removal and epithelial-disruption CXL groups, respectively (P = ?). The corresponding figures were 433.50 ± 33.50 μm and 451.90 ± 39.70 μm, respectively, six months after the treatment (P = 0.0001). The irregularity component was 0.030 ± 0.016 μm in the epithelium-removal group and 0.028 ± 0.011 μm in the epithelium-disruption group preoperatively (P = ?). This measurement was 0.031 ± 0.016 μm and 0.024 ± 0.009 μm, respectively at month 6 (P = 0.04). The epithelium-disruption CXL group had better results in terms of the thickness of the thinnest point and the irregularity component as compared to the epithelium-removal group. The two study groups were comparable in spherical equivalent, mean keratometry, UCVA, BSCVA, or other Fourier analysis components (spherical R min, spherical eccentricity, central, peripheral regular astigmatism, and maximum decentration) (P > 0.05).


Conclusion: This study shows that epithelium-disruption CXL is superior to epithelium removal CXL regarding the short-term changes in pachymetry and corneal irregularity. Other evaluated parameters were comparable between the two techniques within the six-month follow-up period.

Keywords:

Corneal Cross Linking, Epithelium Disruption, Epithelium Removal, Fourier Analysis, Keratoconus, Randomized Controlled Trial, Transepithelial

References
1. Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol 1998;42:297–319.

2. Rebenitsch RL, Kymes SM, Walline JJ, Gordon MO. The lifetime economic burden of keratoconus: a decision analysis using a Markov model. Am J Ophthalmol 2011;151:768–773.

3. Tatematsu-Ogawa Y, Yamada M, Kawashima M, Yamazaki Y, Bryce T, Tsubota K. The disease burden of keratoconus in patients’ lives: comparisons to a Japanese normative sample. Eye Contact Lens 2008;34:13–16.

4. Hashemi H, Khabazkhoob M, Fotouhi A. Topographic keratoconus is not rare in an Iranian population: the Tehran eye study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2013;20:385–391.

5. Wollensak G, Spoerl E, Seiler T. Riboflavin/ultraviolet a- induced collagen crosslinking for the treatment of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;135:620–627.

6. Li J, Ji P, Lin X. Efficacy of corneal collagen cross-linking for treatment of keratoconus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLOS ONE 2015;10:e0127079.

7. Sedaghat M, Bagheri M, Ghavami S, Bamdad S. Changes in corneal topography and biomechanical properties after collagen crosslinking for keratoconus: 1-year results. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2015;22:212.

8. Lesniak SP, Hersh PS. Transepithelial corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus: six-month results. J Cataract Refract Surg 2014;40:1971–1979.

9. Li W, Wang B. Efficacy and safety of transepithelial corneal collagen crosslinking surgery versus standard corneal collagen crosslinking surgery for keratoconus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Ophthalmol 2017;17:262.

10. Soeters N, Wisse RP, Godefrooij DA, Imhof SM, Tahzib NG. Transepithelial versus epithelium-off corneal crosslinking for the treatment of progressive keratoconus: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Ophthalmol 2015;159:821–828.

11. Rechichi M, Daya S, Scorcia V, Meduri A, Scorcia G. Epithelial-disruption collagen crosslinking for keratoconus: one-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:1171–1178.

12. Hirji N, Sykakis E, Lam FC, Petrarca R, Hamada S, Lake D. Corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus or corneal ectasia without epithelial debridement. Eye 2015;29:764.

13. Hashemi H, Miraftab M, Hafezi F, Asgari S. Matched comparison study of total and partial epithelium removal in corneal cross-linking. J Refract Surg 2015;31:110–115.

14. Galvis V, Tello A, Carreño NI, Ortiz AI, Barrera R, Rodriguez CJ, et al. Corneal cross-linking (with a partial deepithelization) in keratoconus with five years of followup. Ophthalmol Eye Dis 2016; 8:17–21.

15. Sideroudi H, Labiris G, Ditzel F, Tsaragli E, Georgatzoglou K, Siganos H, et al. Validation of Fourier analysis of videokeratographic data. Int Ophthalmol 2018;38:1433– 1440.

16. Sideroudi H, Labiris G, Georgatzoglou K, Ditzel F, Siganos C, Kozobolis V. Fourier analysis of videokeratography data: clinical usefulness in grade I and subclinical keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016;42:731–737.

17. Oshika T, Tanabe T, Tomidokoro A, Amano S. Progression of keratoconus assessed by Fourier analysis of videokeratography data. Ophthalmology 2002;109:339–342.

18. Greenstein SA, Hersh PS. Characteristics influencing outcomes of corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus and ectasia: implications for patient selection. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:1133–1140.

19. Sloot F, Soeters N, van der Valk R, Tahzib NG. Effective corneal collagen crosslinking in advanced cases of progressive keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:1141–1145.

20. Greenstein SA, Shah VP, Fry KL, Hersh PS. Corneal thickness changes after corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: one-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011;37:691–700.

21. Ziaei M, Meyer J, Gokul A, Vellara H, McGhee CN. Direct measurement of anterior corneal curvature changes attributable to epithelial removal in keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2018;44:71–77.

22. Godefrooij DA, El Kandoussi M, Soeters N, Wisse RP. Higher order optical aberrations and visual acuity in a randomized controlled trial comparing transepithelial versus epithelium-off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus. Clin Ophthalmol 2017;11:1931.