Moderate keratoconus with thick corneas.

PURPOSE To describe two patients with moderate keratoconus and a corneal thickness exceeding 600 μm at the thinnest point. METHODS Case report. RESULTS In the first case, the steepest keratometric power was 51.50 diopters (D) in the right eye and 53.4 in the left eye and the thickness at the thinnest point was 658 and 625 μm, respectively. In the second case, the steepest keratometric power was 46.70 D in the right eye and 49.60 D in the left eye and the thickness at the thinnest point was 618 and 608 μm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Keratoconus may develop despite a very thick cornea, reinforcing the idea that biomechanical changes can signify an important factor in the development and progression of this pathology.

[1]  Ronald R Krueger,et al.  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 , 2009, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[2]  David Touboul,et al.  Correlations between corneal hysteresis, intraocular pressure, and corneal central pachymetry , 2008, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

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

[4]  I. Cunliffe,et al.  Assessment of the biomechanical properties of the cornea with the ocular response analyzer in normal and keratoconic eyes. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  S. Tuli,et al.  Delayed ectasia following LASIK with no risk factors: is a 300-microm stromal bed enough? , 2007, Journal of refractive surgery.

[6]  Ahmed Elsheikh,et al.  Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[7]  Renato Ambrósio,et al.  Progressão da espessura corneana do ponto mais fino em direção ao limbo: estudo de uma população normal e de portadores de ceratocone para criação de valores de referência , 2006 .

[8]  Ö. Uçakhan,et al.  Corneal thickness measurements in normal and keratoconic eyes: Pentacam comprehensive eye scanner versus noncontact specular microscopy and ultrasound pachymetry , 2006, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[9]  Lyndon Jones,et al.  Corneal and epithelial thickness in keratoconus: a comparison of ultrasonic pachymetry, Orbscan II, and optical coherence tomography. , 2006, Journal of refractive surgery.

[10]  T. Oshika,et al.  Central Corneal Thickness Measurements Using Orbscan II Scanning Slit Topography, Noncontact Specular Microscopy, and Ultrasonic Pachymetry in Eyes With Keratoconus , 2005, Cornea.

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

[12]  S. Hosking,et al.  Corneal pachymetry in normal and keratoconic eyes: Orbscan II versus ultrasound , 2004, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[13]  T T McMahon,et al.  Baseline findings in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study. , 1998, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[14]  T. Avitabile,et al.  Evaluation of central and peripheral corneal thickness with ultrasound biomicroscopy in normal and keratoconic eyes. , 1997, Cornea.

[15]  S. Gromacki,et al.  Central and Peripheral Corneal Thickness in Keratoconus and Normal Patient Groups , 1994, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[16]  Michael J Lynn,et al.  Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. , 2008, Ophthalmology.