Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Wavefront Measurements afterPenetrating Keratoplasty and itsCorrelation with Refraction and
Corneal Topography
Maria Regina Chalita, MD, PhD
Medical Director - Vision InstituteMedical Director - Vision Institute
Federal University of SFederal University of Sãão Paulo - Brazilo Paulo - Brazil
Co-authors
• Adalia Ferreira,M.D.
• Mauro Campos, M.D.
• Ana Luisa Hofling-Lima, M.D.
Purpose
• Evaluate wavefront measurement in patients
after penetrating keratoplasty(PK) and
correlate it with refraction and corneal
topography
Methods
• 29 patients (35 eyes) who underwent PK betweenJuly 1992 and April 2003
• Mean follow-up: 57.9 months (range 12 to 142)
• UCVA, BCVA, manifest refraction, cycloplegicrefraction, corneal topography and wavefrontanalysis
• Wavefront measurements (LADARWave®)– (MRC)
– 6.0mm pupil size
– Up to 6th order
Methods• Main indications for PK:
– KCN 80%– Leucoma 11.4%– Infectious keratitis 5.7%– Fuchs dystrophy 2.9%
• Exclusion criteria– Aphakic or pseudophakic eyes– Retinal diseases– Previous ocular surgery
Methods• Statistical Analysis
– Vector analysis for MR, CR and WR• M, J0 and J45
– Vector analysis for corneal topography• J0 and J45
– Correlation coefficient (p<0.05)
Results
• 29 patients: 11 F (38%): 18 M (62%)
• Age: Mean: 34.2 years (21-54)
• All PK performed by one surgeon
• PK size: 8.0 – 8.25mm
Descriptive Statistics ofRefraction Components
Comparison of Manifest and Cycloplegic Refraction for M vector component
-14-12-10-8-6-4-202468
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Manifest Refraction - M
R=0.95
P<0.001
Comparison of Manifest and Wavefront Refraction for M
vector component
-14-12-10-8-6-4-202468
-14-12-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Manifest Refraction - M
R=0.92
P<0.001
Comparison of Cycloplegic and Wavefront Refraction for M vector
component
-14-12-10-8-6-4-202468
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Cycloplegic Refraction - M
R=0.98
P<0.001
Comparison of Manifest and Cycloplegic Refraction for J0
vector component
-4-3-2-1012345
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Manifest Refraction - J0
R=0.87
P<0.001
Comparison of Manifest and Wavefront Refraction for J0 vector
component
-4-3-2-1012345
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Manifest Refraction - J0
R=0.89
P<0.001
Comparison of Cycloplegic and Wavefront Refraction for J0 vector
component
-4-3-2-1012345
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Cycloplegic Refraction - J0
R=0.95
P<0.001
Comparison of Manifest and Cycloplegic Refraction for J45
vector component
-4-3-2-101234
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Manifest Refraction - J45
R=0.93
P<0.001
Comparison of Manifest and Wavefront Refraction for J45 vector
component
-4-3-2-101234
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Manifest Refraction - J45
R=0.92
P<0.001
Comparison of Cycloplegic and Wavefront Refraction for J45 vector
component
-4-3-2-101234
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Cycloplegic Refraction - J45
R=0.88
P<0.001
Descriptive Statistics ofWavefront Aberrations
Example 1
Example 1
Example 2
Example 2
Good reproducibility
Conclusion• Wavefront measurements were possible in highly
aberrated post-PK eyes, with good quality andreproducibility
• Wavefront refraction showed a statistically significantcorrelation with Manifest and Cycloplegic refractions
• Mean higher order aberration values were greater inpost-PK eyes when compared to normal eyes (otherterms – trefoil and tetrafoil)
• No statistically significant correlations were foundbetween topography and refraction and alsotopography and wavefront
Thank You!