See the published version of this preprint at BMC Ophthalmology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Jianjiang Xu
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science Eye and ENT Hospital
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Previous studies of internal graft-host malappositions have not dealt with the precise ways in which each wound malapposition affected post-keratoplasty visual outcomes. In this study, reviewing our postsurgical keratoconic patients using anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) to evaluate the correlation between characteristics of the graft-host interface (GHI) and visual outcomes was aimed.
Methods: Correlations between characteristics of GHI and the postsurgical visual outcomes, including logarithm of minimum angle of resolution best-corrected visual acuity (logMAR BCVA), spherical equivalent diopter (SE), diopter of spherical power (DS), diopter of cylindrical power (DC), and keratometric astigmatism, were evaluated of 45 eyes (patients).
Results: The graft-host touch (GHT) varied with different alignment patterns. LogMAR BCVA correlated positively with GHT (r=0.32, P=0.030) and junctional graft thickness (Tg) (r=0.49, P=0.001). SE had positive correlation with frequency of step [F (step)] (r=0.46, P=0.001), graft step [F (graft step)] (r=0.40, P=0.028), total prevalence of malapposition proportion (Pm) (r=0.35, P=0.018), size of malapposition (Sm) (r=0.31, P=0.037), Tg (r=0.03, P=0.022), disparity between junctional graft and host thickness (|Tg-Th|) (r=0.40, P=0.007), and correlated negatively with GHT (r=-0.34, P=0.021). Similar results were acquired in DS. Keratometric astigmatism was found to correlate positively with Sm (r=0.30, P=0.047).
Conclusion: In keratoconic eyes, corneal keratometric astigmatism increased by 0.017 with Sm. LogMAR BCVA increased by 0.001 with both GHT and Tg. Investigation of the visions for keratoconus patients. Our study might have potential reference value for future technological promotion.
Keywords
keratoconus, keratoplasty, graft-host interface, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, visual outcome
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Ophthalmology.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 04 Jan, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 03 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 19 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 16 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 15 Dec, 2019
Editor invited
On 15 Dec, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 15 Nov, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 16 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 10 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Oct, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 10 Oct, 2019
Editor assigned
On 08 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 07 Oct, 2019
Editor invited
On 07 Oct, 2019
Version 1
Posted 12 Dec, 2018
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 29 Aug, 2019
Review #3 received
Received 06 Aug, 2019
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 31 Jul, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 20 Jul, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 24 Apr, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 28 Mar, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 Mar, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 16 Jan, 2019
Editor assigned
On 07 Jan, 2019
Editor invited
On 10 Dec, 2018
Submission checks complete
On 10 Dec, 2018
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Internal Medicine Specialties
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Ophthalmology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Jianjiang Xu
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science Eye and ENT Hospital
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Ophthalmology.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 04 Jan, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 03 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 19 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 16 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 15 Dec, 2019
Editor invited
On 15 Dec, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 15 Nov, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 16 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 10 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Oct, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 10 Oct, 2019
Editor assigned
On 08 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 07 Oct, 2019
Editor invited
On 07 Oct, 2019
Version 1
Posted 12 Dec, 2018
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 29 Aug, 2019
Review #3 received
Received 06 Aug, 2019
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 31 Jul, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 20 Jul, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 24 Apr, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 28 Mar, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 Mar, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 16 Jan, 2019
Editor assigned
On 07 Jan, 2019
Editor invited
On 10 Dec, 2018
Submission checks complete
On 10 Dec, 2018
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Internal Medicine Specialties
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Ophthalmology.
Background: Previous studies of internal graft-host malappositions have not dealt with the precise ways in which each wound malapposition affected post-keratoplasty visual outcomes. In this study, reviewing our postsurgical keratoconic patients using anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) to evaluate the correlation between characteristics of the graft-host interface (GHI) and visual outcomes was aimed.
Methods: Correlations between characteristics of GHI and the postsurgical visual outcomes, including logarithm of minimum angle of resolution best-corrected visual acuity (logMAR BCVA), spherical equivalent diopter (SE), diopter of spherical power (DS), diopter of cylindrical power (DC), and keratometric astigmatism, were evaluated of 45 eyes (patients).
Results: The graft-host touch (GHT) varied with different alignment patterns. LogMAR BCVA correlated positively with GHT (r=0.32, P=0.030) and junctional graft thickness (Tg) (r=0.49, P=0.001). SE had positive correlation with frequency of step [F (step)] (r=0.46, P=0.001), graft step [F (graft step)] (r=0.40, P=0.028), total prevalence of malapposition proportion (Pm) (r=0.35, P=0.018), size of malapposition (Sm) (r=0.31, P=0.037), Tg (r=0.03, P=0.022), disparity between junctional graft and host thickness (|Tg-Th|) (r=0.40, P=0.007), and correlated negatively with GHT (r=-0.34, P=0.021). Similar results were acquired in DS. Keratometric astigmatism was found to correlate positively with Sm (r=0.30, P=0.047).
Conclusion: In keratoconic eyes, corneal keratometric astigmatism increased by 0.017 with Sm. LogMAR BCVA increased by 0.001 with both GHT and Tg. Investigation of the visions for keratoconus patients. Our study might have potential reference value for future technological promotion.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Loading...