Calculation of the Real Corneal Refractive Power after Photorefractive Keratectomy Using Pentacam, When Only the Preoperative Refractive Error is Known

Unexpected ocular morphological changes after corneal refractive surgery: A review

Corneal refractive surgery (CRS) currently is widely used to correct refractive errors because of its efficacy and reliability. Several studies dealt with the corneal modification induced by this type of surgery, but it is still debated if CRS can induce unexpected changes namely anterior chamber depth (ACD) and axial length (AL). A literature review was performed, including all articles regarding CRS and eye-variations from 1999 to December 2021. Excluding articles about specific systemic conditions (e.g., pregnancy), pathological conditions, post-surgical complications or about only corneal flattening and thinning post CRS, we found nine studies that met the search criteria. We divided the found articles according to the type of surgery performed (radial keratotomy, PRK/LASEK, lasik) and analyzed the results about ACD and AL. Finally, according to the literature, we can conclude that CRS not only gives a corneal flattening, thinning and biomechanical changes, but also induces AL and ACD decrease. This makes the AL and ACD measurements obtained before CRS uselessness in case of IOL power calculation.

Comparison between dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry correcting equations

In order to investigate the reliability of correcting GAT formulas in comparison with dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), this study included 112 right eyes of 112 healthy subjects aged from 21 to 77 years, whose eyes underwent to a full ophthalmologic exam. IOP was measured in each eye with DCT and then with GAT. IOP values obtained with GAT were corrected with 10 equations and then compared with those provided by DCT. Participants mean age was 42.24 ± 14.08 years; mean IOP measured with DCT was 17.61 ± 2.87 and 15.50 ± 2.47 mmHg, measured with GAT. The mean discordance between DCT and GAT measurements was 2.11 ± 2.24 mmHg. All the correcting formulas, but Srodka one (p ˂ 0.001), tend to increase the difference between GAT and DCT. According to these results Śródka equation provides the best correction, reducing the difference between the two IOP measurement methods of - 0.03 ± 0.85 mmHg. Other equations do not provide a valid improvement of the agreement between the two methods or they provide a worsening of the agreement.

Reply to Cione et al. Comment on "Iida et al. Development of a New Method for Calculating Intraocular Lens Power after Myopic Laser In Situ Keratomileusis by Combining the Anterior-Posterior Ratio of the Corneal Radius of the Curvature with the Double-K Method. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 522"

We appreciate the insightful comments [...].

Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices

Purpose

To evaluate the correlation between corneal thickness (CT) measurements obtained with two Scheimpflug devices, Pentacam HR and Precisio, and to elaborate, if necessary, a regression formula which could make these results comparable.

Design

Retrospective, Comparative, Observational study.

Setting

Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, “Scuola Medica Salernitana” University of Salerno, Italy

Methods

One hundred twenty four healthy eyes of 124 volunteers (65 males; range: 20–32 years; mean age of 24.8 ± 1.7) were included in this study. CT was measured using Pentacam HR and Precisio in three different points: the pupil center (PC), the corneal apex (CA) and the thinnest point (TP).

Results

CT obtained with both devices at the PC, at the CA and at the TP showed a good correlation (r = 0.97, r = 0.97, r = 0.97, respectively), but Pentacam HR measurements were significantly thicker than those provided by Precisio (p < 0.01). The differences between Pentacam HR and Precisio were 21.9 ± 8.8 μm at the PC, 21.9 ± 8.9 μm at the CA, 19.1 ± 9.0 μm at the TP. The calculated regression formulas were: y = 0.9558x + 2.3196 for the PC, y = 0.9519x + 4.5626 for the CA, y = 0.9364x + 15.436 for the TP, where x is the CT measured with Pentacam HR and y is the Precisio measurement.

Conclusions

The findings provided by this study highlight that Precisio measures thinner corneas compared to Pentacam HR. The identified regression formulas could be utilized to make interchangeable the results obtained with these two devices.