Cargando…
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) sur...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9549448/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36217120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02620-7 |
_version_ | 1784805674458284032 |
---|---|
author | Yang, Zhiqing Miao, Na Wang, Lixiang Ma, Ke |
author_facet | Yang, Zhiqing Miao, Na Wang, Lixiang Ma, Ke |
author_sort | Yang, Zhiqing |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9549448 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95494482022-10-11 Comparison of different correction formulas and measurement methods for the accurate determination of intraocular pressure after SMILE and FS-LASIK surgery Yang, Zhiqing Miao, Na Wang, Lixiang Ma, Ke BMC Ophthalmol Research 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. BioMed Central 2022-10-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9549448/ /pubmed/36217120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02620-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Yang, Zhiqing Miao, Na Wang, Lixiang Ma, Ke Comparison of different correction formulas and measurement methods for the accurate determination of intraocular pressure after SMILE and FS-LASIK surgery |
title | Comparison of different correction formulas and measurement methods for the accurate determination of intraocular pressure after SMILE and FS-LASIK surgery |
title_full | Comparison of different correction formulas and measurement methods for the accurate determination of intraocular pressure after SMILE and FS-LASIK surgery |
title_fullStr | Comparison of different correction formulas and measurement methods for the accurate determination of intraocular pressure after SMILE and FS-LASIK surgery |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of different correction formulas and measurement methods for the accurate determination of intraocular pressure after SMILE and FS-LASIK surgery |
title_short | Comparison of different correction formulas and measurement methods for the accurate determination of intraocular pressure after SMILE and FS-LASIK surgery |
title_sort | comparison of different correction formulas and measurement methods for the accurate determination of intraocular pressure after smile and fs-lasik surgery |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9549448/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36217120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02620-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yangzhiqing comparisonofdifferentcorrectionformulasandmeasurementmethodsfortheaccuratedeterminationofintraocularpressureaftersmileandfslasiksurgery AT miaona comparisonofdifferentcorrectionformulasandmeasurementmethodsfortheaccuratedeterminationofintraocularpressureaftersmileandfslasiksurgery AT wanglixiang comparisonofdifferentcorrectionformulasandmeasurementmethodsfortheaccuratedeterminationofintraocularpressureaftersmileandfslasiksurgery AT make comparisonofdifferentcorrectionformulasandmeasurementmethodsfortheaccuratedeterminationofintraocularpressureaftersmileandfslasiksurgery |