|
مقاله
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Title:
|
Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for keratectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis
|
Author(s):
|
Ramin Salouti, M.D.1, 2, Mohammad H Nowroozzadeh, M.D.1*, Payam Makateb , M.D.1, Mohammad Zamani, M.D.2, Maryam Ghoreyshi, M.D.2, Gerrit R. J. Melles, M.D., Ph.D.3
|
Presentation Type:
|
Oral
|
Subject:
|
Cornea and Anterior Segment
|
Others:
|
|
Presenting Author:
|
|
Name:
|
Ramin Salouti
|
Affiliation :(optional)
|
Department of Ophthalmology, Poostchi Ophthalmic Research Center, Shiraz
|
E mail:
|
saloutir@hotmail.com
|
Phone:
|
6278853
|
Mobile:
|
09171117976
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
To assess the efficacy of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) for treating post-LASIK keratectasia
|
Methods:
|
In this interventional case series, DALK was performed using the Melles manual technique by a single surgeon. Pre- and post-operative best spectacle visual acuity (BSCVA), spherical equivalent (SE) refraction, mean keratometry, apical keratometry, keratometric astigmatism, and endothelial cell profile were compared
|
Results:
|
The study cohort comprised 20 eyes of 18 patients (mean age 29 ± 4 years, 72% female). The mean follow-up was 27.6 ± 18.9 (range 6 to 60) months. The mean Snellen BSCVA improved from 20/191 before DALK to 20/23 after DALK (P<0.001).
The modulus of mean SE refraction was 11.8±5.5 D and 11.2±4.3 D before and after DALK, respectively (P=0.305). The mean keratometry was 51.3±5.1 D preoperatively and 46.4±2.0 D postoperatively (P=0.002), the apical keratometry, 59.5±5.1 and 49.9±2.6 D (P<0.001), and the mean keratometric astigmatism, 3.8±1.8 and 2.2±1.7 D, respectively (P=0.029). The endothelial cell profile did not change significantly after DALK. No major complications related to DALK were occurred. Ten eyes underwent addition refractive procedure to correct residual myopia.
|
Conclusion:
|
Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty using the manual technique is effective and safe in restoring BSCVA in patients with post-LASIK keratectasia; however, high residual myopia is a common finding
|
Attachment:
|
|
|