May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Evaluation of Manual Versus Microkeratome–Assisted Posterior Lamellar Keratoplasty Surface Roughness
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • G. Whitehead
    Ophthalmology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH
  • J.R. Lewis
    Ophthalmology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH
  • A.J. Schrader
    Ophthalmology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH
  • T.F. Mauger
    Ophthalmology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  G. Whitehead, None; J.R. Lewis, None; A.J. Schrader, None; T.F. Mauger, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  The Carl M. and Grace C. Baldwin Eye Care Fund
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 2747. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      G. Whitehead, J.R. Lewis, A.J. Schrader, T.F. Mauger; Evaluation of Manual Versus Microkeratome–Assisted Posterior Lamellar Keratoplasty Surface Roughness . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):2747.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To characterize the topographical roughness of the corneal lamellar bed following manual and microkeratome–assisted posterior lamellar keratoplasty.

Methods: : Deep lamellar keratoplasty procedures were performed on 8 freshly enucleated porcine corneas. Four corneal beds were dissected by standard manual deep lamellar keratoplasty technique and four corneal beds were dissected by standard microkeratome–assisted technique. To compare the smoothness of the lamellar beds of the two groups, scanning electron microscopy images and high–magnification, optical profilometry roughness parameters measured across multiple 100–µm regions of each bed were obtained. A two–tailed T–test analysis was used to compare the mean roughness parameters Rz and Ra between the two groups.

Results: : The surface smoothness of the two groups were qualitatively different as measured by SEM. The optical profilometry surface roughness analyses suggest that the manual technique group may result in both larger mean Rz and larger mean Ra parameter values, corresponding to rougher lamellar bed surfaces. Specifically, the manual group mean Rz and mean Ra values were 26.29 ± 4.81 µm and 2.8 ± 1.1 µm versus 19.55 ± 4.30 µm and 1.7 ± 0.48 µm, respectively, for the microkeratome group. The differences between groups were only marginally significant (P=.08) however and may be attributed to the limited sample size.

Conclusions: : These results suggest that the two techniques may result in different stromal bed roughnesses. Quantitative roughness analysis suggests that the manual lamellar technique is associated on average with slightly rougher surfaces than the microkeratome–assisted technique.

Keywords: cornea: stroma and keratocytes • transplantation • microscopy: electron microscopy 
×
×

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.

×