Graft biomechanical properties after penetrating keratoplasty versus deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty

Current Eye Research

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 417-421

  Jafarinasab, Mohammad Reza ^a   Feizi, Sepehr ^a   Javadi, Mohammad Ali ^a   Hashemloo, Ali ^a  

^a SHAHID BEHESHTI UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

Author keywords

Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty; Graft biomechanical properties; Keratoconus; Ocular Response Analyzer; Penetrating keratoplasty

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANWAR BIG BUBBLE TECHNIQUE; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CORNEAL HYSTERESIS; CORNEAL RESISTANCE FACTOR; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DEEP ANTERIOR LAMELLAR KERATOPLASTY; DONOR; FOLLOW UP; GRAFT RECIPIENT; HUMAN; HYSTERESIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; KERATOCONUS; KERATOPLASTY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PENETRATING KERATOPLASTY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; VISUAL ACUITY;

ADULT; BIOMECHANICS; CORNEA; CORNEAL TRANSPLANTATION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; ELASTIC TISSUE; ELASTICITY; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; KERATOCONUS; KERATOPLASTY, PENETRATING;

EID: 79954988953     PISSN: 02713683     EISSN: 14602202     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/02713683.2011.556303     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Shimmura S, Tsubota K. Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17:349-355. (Pubitemid 44215043)
2. Javadi MA, Feizi S, Yazdani S, et al. Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus: A clinical trial. Cornea. 2010;29:365-371.
3. Feizi S, Javadi MA, Jamali H, et al. Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty in patients with keratoconus: Big-bubble tech-nique. Cornea. 2010;29:177-182.
4. Shimazaki J, Shimmura S, Ishioka M, et al. Randomized clini-cal trial of deep lamellar keratoplasty vs. penetrating kerato-plasty Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:159-165. (Pubitemid 34831817)
5. Watson SL, Ramsay A, Dart JK, et al. Comparison of deep lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in patients with keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1676-1682. (Pubitemid 39179682)
6. Jadavi MA, Feizi S, Mirbabaee F, et al. Relaxing incisions combined with adjustment sutures for post-deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty astigmatism in keratoconus. Cornea. 2009;28:1130-1134.
7. Feizi S, Javadi MA, Kanavi MR. Cellular changes of donor corneal tissue after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty ver-sus penetrating keratoplasty in eyes with keratoconus: A confocal study Cornea. 2010;29:866-870.
8. Ortiz D, Piñero D, Shabayek MH, et al. Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post-laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33:1371-1375. (Pubitemid 47096684)
9. Hurmeric V, Sahin A, Ozge G, et al. The relationship between corneal biomechanical properties and confocal microscopy fndings in normal and keratoconic eyes. Cornea. 2010;29:641-649.
10. Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:156-162. (Pubitemid 40260703)
11. Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Cunliffe I, et al. The use of the Reichert ocular response analyser to establish the relation-ship between ocular hysteresis, corneal resistance factor and central corneal thickness in normal eyes. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2006;29:257-262. (Pubitemid 44743122)
12. Yenerel NM, Kucumen RB, Gorgun E. Changes in corneal biomechanics in patients with keratoconus after penetrating keratoplasty Cornea. 2010;29:1247-1251.
13. Shin JY, Choi JS, Oh JY, et al. Evaluation of corneal biomechani-cal properties following penetrating keratoplasty using the ocu-lar response analyzer. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2010;24:139-142.
14. John T, Taylor DA, Shimmyo M, et al. Corneal hysteresis fol-lowing descemetorhexis with endokeratoplasty: Early results. Ann Ophthalmol. 2007;39:9-14. (Pubitemid 350022311)
15. Elsheikh A, Ross S, Alhasso D, et al. Numerical study of the effect of corneal layered structure on ocular biomechanics. Curr Eye Res. 2009;34:26-35.
16. Schweitzer C, Roberts CJ, Mahmoud AM, et al. Screening of forme fruste keratoconus with the ocular response analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:2403-2410.
17. Rao VJ, Gnanaraj L, Mitchell KW, et al. Clinical comparison of ocular blood fow tonometer, Tonopen, and Goldmann applanation tonometer for measuring intraocular pressure in postkeratoplasty eyes. Cornea. 2001;20:834-838. (Pubitemid 33029481)
18. Lisle C, Ehlers N. A clinical comparison of the Xpert non-contact tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonom-eter after penetrating keratoplasty Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000;78:211-215. (Pubitemid 30201434)
19. Ceruti P, Morbio R, Marraffa M, et al. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonom-etry in deep lamellar and penetrating keratoplasties. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145:215-221.
20. Shen M, Wang J, Qu J, et al. Diurnal variation of ocular hys-teresis, corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:1185-1192.
21. Laiquzzaman M, Bhojwani R, Cunliffe I, et al. Diurnal varia-tion of ocular hysteresis in normal subjects: Relevance in clin-ical context. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2006;34:114-118. (Pubitemid 43348983)