Examination of ocular biomechanics with a new Scheimpflug technology after corneal refractive surgery.

PURPOSE To analyze the early results of a new device measuring ocular biomechanics after corneal refractive surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS Thirty nine refractive surgery patients were enrolled in the study (age: 32.6±9.9 years). Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) was performed on 52 eyes of 26 patients and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) was done on 26 eyes of 13 patients. Ten device-specific biomechanical parameters, intraocular pressure (IOP) and pachymetry were measured preoperatively and at day 1, week 1 and month 1 after the surgeries with a new technology based on Scheimpflug imaging (CorVis ST, Oculus). RESULTS In case of LASIK, the day after the procedure, radius values showed significant differences compared to preoperative data. One month after surgery, radius values, velocity of the second applanation and pachymetry showed significant differences compared to preoperative data. In case of PRK, the day after the procedure, significant differences in IOP, maximum amplitude at the apex, A1 time, A2 velocity and highest concavity time were measured. After 1 month of PRK, there were no differences in the parameters compared to preoperative data except pachymetry. CONCLUSIONS We observed that some specific biomechanical parameters changed measured with CorVis ST after LASIK and PRK, in the early postoperative time. However, most of these parameters remain unchanged after one month of LASIK and PRK compared to preoperative data.

[1]  K. Bower,et al.  Corneal biomechanics following epi-LASIK. , 2011, Journal of refractive surgery.

[2]  E. Spörl,et al.  Biomechanische Zustand der Hornhaut als neuer Indikator für pathologische und strukturelle Veränderungen , 2009, Der Ophthalmologe.

[3]  Jianhua Wang,et al.  Changes in ocular response analyzer parameters after LASIK. , 2010, Journal of refractive surgery.

[4]  Mujtaba A. Qazi,et al.  Changes in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic, and noncontact tonometry. , 2007, American journal of ophthalmology.

[5]  Adrienne Csutak,et al.  Repeatability of ocular biomechanical data measurements with a Scheimpflug-based noncontact device on normal corneas. , 2013, Journal of refractive surgery.

[6]  J. Alió,et al.  Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post‐laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyes , 2007, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[7]  J. Wolffsohn,et al.  Changes of Corneal Biomechanics With Keratoconus , 2012, Cornea.

[8]  Y. Hon,et al.  Corneal Deformation Measurement Using Scheimpflug Noncontact Tonometry , 2013, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[9]  K. Shimizu,et al.  Comparison of the Changes in Corneal Biomechanical Properties After Photorefractive Keratectomy and Laser In Situ Keratomileusis , 2009, Cornea.

[10]  D. Luce.  Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer , 2005, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[11]  Damien Gatinel,et al.  Corneal hysteresis, resistance factor, topography, and pachymetry after corneal lamellar flap. , 2007, Journal of refractive surgery.

[12]  J. Jamart,et al.  Evaluation of Corneal Biomechanical Properties with the Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer , 2011, European journal of ophthalmology.

[13]  B Jean,et al.  Dynamic mechanical spectroscopy of the cornea for measurement of its viscoelastic properties in vitro. , 1995, German journal of ophthalmology.

[14]  S. Greenstein,et al.  In Vivo Biomechanical Changes After Corneal Collagen Cross-linking for Keratoconus and Corneal Ectasia: 1-Year Analysis of a Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial , 2012, Cornea.

[15]  E. Spörl,et al.  [Biomechanical condition of the cornea as a new indicator for pathological and structural changes]. , 2009, Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft.

[16]  K. Aggarwal,et al.  Relationship between corneal biomechanical properties, central corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure across the spectrum of glaucoma. , 2012, American journal of ophthalmology.

[17]  T. Pförtner,et al.  Improved keratoconus detection by ocular response analyzer testing after consideration of corneal thickness as a confounding factor. , 2012, Journal of refractive surgery.

[18]  Rex D. Hamilton,et al.  Corneal biomechanical measurements before and after laser in situ keratomileusis , 2008, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[19]  M. Seguí-Gómez,et al.  Reproducibility and clinical relevance of the ocular response analyzer in nonoperated eyes: corneal biomechanical and tonometric implications. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[20]  T. Schlote,et al.  Repeatability of Intraocular Pressure and Corneal Biomechanical Properties Measurements by the Ocular Response Analyser , 2008, Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde.

[21]  A. Guirao.  Theoretical elastic response of the cornea to refractive surgery: risk factors for keratectasia. , 2005, Journal of refractive surgery.

[22]  K. Shimizu,et al.  Time Course of Corneal Biomechanical Parameters after Laser in situ Keratomileusis , 2009, Ophthalmic Research.

[23]  William J Dupps,et al.  Biomechanical modeling of corneal ectasia. , 2005, Journal of refractive surgery.

[24]  F. Raiskup,et al.  Detection of biomechanical changes after corneal cross-linking using Ocular Response Analyzer software. , 2011, Journal of refractive surgery.