September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Pachymetry assisted lamellar keratoplasty Vs penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Enrique O Graue-Hernandez
    Cornea & Refractive surgery , Instituto de Oftalmologia, Mexico, Mexico
  • Alejandro Navas
    Cornea & Refractive surgery , Instituto de Oftalmologia, Mexico, Mexico
  • Arturo J Ramirez-Miranda
    Cornea & Refractive surgery , Instituto de Oftalmologia, Mexico, Mexico
  • Alexandra Abdala
    Cornea & Refractive surgery , Instituto de Oftalmologia, Mexico, Mexico
  • Aida Jimenez-Corona
    Ophthalmic epidemiology, Insitituto de Oftalmología , Mexico City, Mexico
  • Martha Jaimes
    Cornea & Refractive surgery , Instituto de Oftalmologia, Mexico, Mexico
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Enrique Graue-Hernandez, None; Alejandro Navas, None; Arturo Ramirez-Miranda, Carl Zeiss (C); Alexandra Abdala, None; Aida Jimenez-Corona, None; Martha Jaimes, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 1228. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Enrique O Graue-Hernandez, Alejandro Navas, Arturo J Ramirez-Miranda, Alexandra Abdala, Aida Jimenez-Corona, Martha Jaimes; Pachymetry assisted lamellar keratoplasty Vs penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):1228.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare the visual results of pachymetry assisted lamellar keratoplasty (PALK) vs. Penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for keratoconus treatment.

Methods : Retrospective comparative case series. Keratoconus II - IV Amsler-Krumeich were treated with either penetrating keratoplasty (PK) or excimer laser pachymetry assisted lamellar keratoplasty (PALK). Preoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), keratometry, pachymetry, corneal aberrometry and intraocular pressure in four postoperative evaluations. We recorded surgery related adverse events and complications and performed safety and efficacy measures for each procedure. The repeated measures ANOVA test was used to find differences in time for the main outcome variable (CDVA, UDVA) and paired t test to find differences between groups in preoperative and postoperative moments

Results : Fourteen patients were included in each group. PK mean age was 28.92±10.6 years, 71% were female (10) and 29% male (4). PALK mean age was 26.78±7.99 years, 65% female (9) and 35% male (5), p >0.05. Preoperative UDVA in PK group was 1.49±0.4 vs.1.67±0.65 logMar in PALK (p>0.05). Preoperative CDVA was 0.83±0.37 for PK and 1±0.47 logMar for PALK (p>0.05, Postoperative UDVA in PK was 0.72±0.3 vs. 0.87±0.32 logMAR in PALK (p>0.05) figure 1a). Postoperative CDVA was 0.35±0.15 in PK vs. 0.52±0.32 logMar in PALK (p>0.05, figure 1b). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the preoperative and postoperative periods in the keratometric power (figure 2a), pachymetry (figure 2b), high order aberrations, RMS and intraocular pressure (figure 2c). Eighty-six percent of PK patients and 79% of PALK patients won one or more lines of CDVA in the postoperative period

Conclusions : Both techniques had similar visual results at 6 months of follow-up and are safe and effective in the management of keratoconus.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

 

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×