Effectiveness and confounding factors of penetrating astigmatic keratotomy in clinical practice

Effectiveness and confounding factors of penetrating astigmatic keratotomy in clinical practice AbstractRationale:Penetrating astigmatic keratotomy (penetrating AK) is a well-known method to correct corneal astigmatism but rarely be performed nowadays. This article reevaluated the clinical effectiveness and confounding factors of penetrating AK.Patient concerns:Penetrating AK has been introduced to serve as one alternative operation for astigmatism correction, and is thought to have the potential advantage of being more affordable and easy to perform. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the effectiveness and confounding factors of penetrating AK.Diagnoses:The chart of 95 patients with corneal astigmatism (range: 0.75–3.25 diopters [D]) who received penetrating AK from January 2014 to December 2016 was collected. The corneal astigmatism were measured by an autokeratometer (Topcon KR8100PA topographer-autorefractor), and repeated with manual keratometer in low reproducibility cases.Interventions:All patients received penetrating AK by an experienced ophthalmologist (Dr. Gow-Lieng Tseng, MD, PHD) in the operation room. Among which, 66 patients received penetrating AK with phacoemulsification simultaneously (group A), whereas 29 patients received penetrating AK at least 3 months after phacoemulsification (group B). After excluding the patients combined with other procedures or lost followed up, 79 patients are remaining for analysis. The outcome was evaluated by net correction, the difference between preoperative corneal astigmatism (PCA) and residual corneal astigmatism (RCA). Two sample t tests and Pearson test were used for effectiveness evaluation. For confounding factors, multivariate linear regression was used for statistical analysis.Outcomes:The mean preoperative and postoperative refractive cylinders were 1.97 ± 0.77 and 1.08 ± 0.64 D, respectively, in group A and 2.62 ± 1.05 and 1.51 ± 0.89 D in group B. There were no statistically significant differences in net correction between these two groups (0.9 ± 0.66 vs. 1.1 ± 0.69, P = .214). Higher PCA were associated with higher net correction in both group A (P = .002) and group B (P = .019). Compound myopic astigmatism caused less net correction than others only in group A (P = 0.031).Lessons:Penetrating AK is an accessible, affordable, and effective way to correct corneal astigmatism. The results of this procedure are comparable to modern methods in patients with low to moderate corneal astigmatism. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Medicine Wolters Kluwer Health

Effectiveness and confounding factors of penetrating astigmatic keratotomy in clinical practice

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters_kluwer/effectiveness-and-confounding-factors-of-penetrating-astigmatic-W24EN98dS8
Publisher
Wolters Kluwer
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
ISSN
0025-7974
eISSN
1536-5964
D.O.I.
10.1097/MD.0000000000009709
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AbstractRationale:Penetrating astigmatic keratotomy (penetrating AK) is a well-known method to correct corneal astigmatism but rarely be performed nowadays. This article reevaluated the clinical effectiveness and confounding factors of penetrating AK.Patient concerns:Penetrating AK has been introduced to serve as one alternative operation for astigmatism correction, and is thought to have the potential advantage of being more affordable and easy to perform. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the effectiveness and confounding factors of penetrating AK.Diagnoses:The chart of 95 patients with corneal astigmatism (range: 0.75–3.25 diopters [D]) who received penetrating AK from January 2014 to December 2016 was collected. The corneal astigmatism were measured by an autokeratometer (Topcon KR8100PA topographer-autorefractor), and repeated with manual keratometer in low reproducibility cases.Interventions:All patients received penetrating AK by an experienced ophthalmologist (Dr. Gow-Lieng Tseng, MD, PHD) in the operation room. Among which, 66 patients received penetrating AK with phacoemulsification simultaneously (group A), whereas 29 patients received penetrating AK at least 3 months after phacoemulsification (group B). After excluding the patients combined with other procedures or lost followed up, 79 patients are remaining for analysis. The outcome was evaluated by net correction, the difference between preoperative corneal astigmatism (PCA) and residual corneal astigmatism (RCA). Two sample t tests and Pearson test were used for effectiveness evaluation. For confounding factors, multivariate linear regression was used for statistical analysis.Outcomes:The mean preoperative and postoperative refractive cylinders were 1.97 ± 0.77 and 1.08 ± 0.64 D, respectively, in group A and 2.62 ± 1.05 and 1.51 ± 0.89 D in group B. There were no statistically significant differences in net correction between these two groups (0.9 ± 0.66 vs. 1.1 ± 0.69, P = .214). Higher PCA were associated with higher net correction in both group A (P = .002) and group B (P = .019). Compound myopic astigmatism caused less net correction than others only in group A (P = 0.031).Lessons:Penetrating AK is an accessible, affordable, and effective way to correct corneal astigmatism. The results of this procedure are comparable to modern methods in patients with low to moderate corneal astigmatism.

Journal

MedicineWolters Kluwer Health

Published: Jan 1, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off