Changes in Intraocular Pressure after Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy and Femtosecond Laser In Situ Keratomileusis

Intraocular pressure after combined photorefractive keratectomy and corneal collagen cross-linking for keratoconus

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the effect of combined photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) on intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with keratoconus (KC).

METHODS

We included 64 eyes of 34 patients (19 males and 15 females; age: 19-40y) with stages 1-2 keratoconus which had undergone combined wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy and corneal collagen cross linking. Two other groups of patients were added as controls: the PRK group including 110 eyes of 57 patients (23 males and 34 females; age: 18-44y) which had undergone wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy for myopic refractive errors, and the CXL group including 36 eyes of 23 patients (14 males and 9 females; age: 12-38y) with keratoconus, not filling the inclusion criteria for combined PRK and CXL, which had undergone corneal collagen cross-linking. IOP was recorded preoperatively and postoperatively at 3, 6 and 12 months follow-up visits.

RESULTS

Preoperative IOP in both CXL (12.1 ± 2.53 mmHg) and PRK + CXL (13.2 ± 2.50 mmHg) groups was significantly lower than PRK group (15.8 ± 3.10 mmHg) (F = 30.505, p < 0.001). At 3 months postoperatively, IOP showed no statistically significant difference between the three studied groups (F = 1.821, p = 0.164). At 6 months postoperatively, IOP in the CXL group (14.6 ± 2.64 mmHg) was significantly higher than both PRK (13.4 ± 2.27 mmHg) and PRK + CXL (13.3 ± 2.62 mmHg) groups (F = 3.721, p = 0.026). At 12 months postoperatively, IOP in the CXL group (14.3 ± 2.69 mmHg) was significantly higher than the PRK group (13.2 ± 2.23 mmHg) and was higher than PRK + CXL group (13.3 ± 2.59 mmHg) although not statistically significant (F = 3.393, p = 0.035). Regarding the percent of change from preoperative IOP, a statistically significant difference between the three studied groups was detected at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively (H = 117.459, 109.303, 122.694 respectively, p < 0.001). The median percent of change from preoperative IOP in the PRK group was -16.7%, -15%, and -16.7%, in the CXL group was + 14.3%, + 19.4%, and + 19.1%, while in PRK + CXL group was 0% at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. (Post-hoc power analysis 75%).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined PRK and CXL in patients with KC shows no significant effect on IOP, in contrast to either procedure performed separately.

Comparison of errors in ablation depth calculation after myopic femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis in patients with different degrees of myopia: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

To investigate the difference between the predicted preoperative corneal ablation depth and the measured ablation depth for femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) in patients with different degrees of myopia, and to analyze the source of the difference.

METHODS

A total of 55 patients (109 eyes) were included in this study. Multiple logistics regression was applied to analyze the sources affecting postoperative refractive outcomes. The difference between the preoperative predicted corneal ablation depth and the 1-day postoperative ablation depth in patients with different degrees of myopia was explored using linear regression. Corneal biomechanical parameters influencing error in ablation depth calculation were examined using multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine eyes were divided into low to moderate myopia (55 eyes, myopia of 6 D or less), high myopia (45 eyes, myopia ranging from 6 D to a maximum of 9 D), and very high myopia group (9 eyes, myopia greater than 9 D) based on preoperative refractive error (spherical equivalent). Postoperative visual outcomes were comparable among the three groups of patients, with no significant difference in uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA). We did find notable disparities in spherical equivalent (SE) and central corneal thickness (CCT) in patients with different degrees of myopia at 1 day postoperatively (all p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that error in ablation depth calculation was an independent risk factor for refractive outcomes one day after surgery (OR = 1.689, 95% CI: 1.366 - 2.089). There was a substantial discrepancy in error in ablation depth calculation at 1 day postoperatively between the three groups. The measured ablation depth of the laser platform was lower than the predicted ablation depth in the low to moderate myopia and very high myopia groups, but the opposite was true in the high myopia group. Pre-operative SE (p < 0.001) and corneal front minimum radius of curvature (Front Rmin) (p = 0.007) obviously influenced the error in ablation depth calculation.

CONCLUSIONS

Error in ablation depth calculation values vary significantly between patients with different degrees of myopia and correlate highly with preoperative SE and Front Rmin. At the same time, the available evidence suggests that error in ablation depth calculation is an influential factor in postoperative refractive status, so it is imperative to control error in ablation depth calculation.

Comparison of different correction formulas and measurement methods for the accurate determination of intraocular pressure after SMILE and FS-LASIK surgery

Background

To compare the accuracy of non-contact tonometry, Pentacam, and corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (Corvis ST) for the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) or femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) surgery.

Methods

A total of 49 patients (98 eyes) undergoing FS-LASIK or SMILE surgery at West China Hospital, Sichuan University from January to March 2021 were enrolled in this prospective, comparative, self-controlled study. IOP values were measured with non-contact tonometer, Pentacam, and Corvis ST before surgery and 1 month after surgery. Pentacam-derived postoperative IOP values were corrected using five correction formulas (Ehlers, Shah, Dresden, Orssengo-Pye, and Kohlhaas), while Corvis ST-derived values were corrected using a single formula.

Results

In the SMILE group, no significant differences were observed between the IOP values corrected with the Shah formula before and after surgery (t = 0.17, P = 0.869), whereas postoperative IOP values corrected with the other formulas were significantly different from the corresponding preoperative measurements (P < 0.05). In the FS-LASIK group, postoperative IOP values corrected with the Ehlers, Shah, or Corvis ST formulas were significantly different from the corresponding preoperative IOP measurements (P < 0.05), but no significant differences were observed between pre- and postoperative IOP values corrected with the Dresden (t =  − 0.08, P = 0.941), Orssengo-Pye (t =  − 0.52, P = 0.604), or Kohlhaas (t = 1.22, P = 0.231) formulas.

Conclusions

Pentacam’s Shah correction formula seemed to be the most appropriate method for accurately measuring postoperative IOP in patients undergoing SMILE surgery, while the Dresden, Orssengo-Pye, and Kohlhaas correction formulas of Pentacam were identified as the most reliable methods for estimating IOP in patients after FS-LASIK surgery.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12886-022-02620-7.