Search

Inflammation may play a significant role in Keratoconus (KC), but the relationship between inflammatory markers and choroidal thickness (CT) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate serum inflammatory markers and correlate them with the choroidal profile of KC patients and control subjects. Forty patients with KC and 26 age-matched control subjects were enrolled in a cross-sectional case–control study. Choroidal profile was studied with a Spectralis Heidelberg apparatus and venous blood samples were collected. Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte/HDL ratio (MHR), platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and systemic immune inflammation index (SII) were calculated. Serum inflammatory biomarkers IL-1, IL-6 and TNF-alfa were also analyzed. KC group presented thicker choroids in each evaluated point when compared to the control group (subfoveal CT 417.38 ± 79.79 vs 299.61 ± 76.13, p < 0.001 for all measured locations). Mean values of NLR, PLR and SII were significantly higher in patients with KC (NLR p = 0.001; PLR p = 0.042; SII p = 0.007). Although KC patients presented higher mean levels of MHR, IL-1, IL-6 and TNF-α than control group, no significant differences were achieved. Positive correlations were found between subfoveal CT and NLR and SII (0.408, p = 0.001 and 0.288, p = 0.019 respectively). The results presented are in favor of a relationship between the increased CT and inflammatory mechanisms in KC patients. The elevated serum inflammatory indices NLR, SII and PLR provide additional evidence of a role for systemic inflammation in the pathophysiology of KC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the long-term risk of geographic atrophy (GA) progression after cataract surgery. Methods: Subjects with GA secondary to AMD followed for at least 1 year with fundus autofluorescence imaging and with at least two visits at our centre were included. Patients with wet AMD, disciform scar, past history of intravitreal injections or laser treatment, other maculopathies and with poor quality images were excluded. GA area at baseline and at follow-up visit was measured. Three study groups were defined according to their phakic status: (A) pseudophakia, (B) phakic and (C) phacoemulsification surgery performed during the study. Differences of GA area progression were compared between these study groups. In addition, comparison between GA progression rate in group (C) before and after the surgery was performed. The enlargement rate (ER) was calculated for lesion size after transforming the measurements to the square-root scale. Results: A total of 92 eyes of 92 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up time was 4 [1–10] years. Regarding the eye's phakic status, 29 (31.5%) were pseudophakic and 63 (68.5%) were phakic; of these, 22 underwent phacoemulsification during the study. Overall, the median baseline and follow-up area of GA were 1.42 [0.04–32.10] mm2 and 6.48 [0.25–47.40] mm2, respectively. The ER was similar between phakic and pseudophakic eyes (0.18 [0.01–1.03] vs 0.15 [0.01–0.65] mm/year, p = 0.62). In patients that underwent cataract surgery during the study, the GA ER remained stable (0.13 [0.01–0.92] vs 0.14 [0.01–0.63] mm/year, p = 0.43). Conclusion: These results suggest that cataract surgery does not increase the risk of pre-existing GA progression. Therefore, cataract surgery seems safe and a potential therapeutic weapon to improve visual acuity and consequently quality of life in GA patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Numerous approaches have been designated to document progression in keratoconus, nevertheless there is no consistent or clear definition of ectasia progression. In this present study, we aim to evaluate Keratoconus Enlargement (KCE) as a parameter to document ectasia progression. We define KCE as an increase of more than 1D in the anterior curvature of non-apical corneal areas. We have designed a longitudinal study in 113 keratoconic eyes to assess keratoconus progression. KCE was compared with variables commonly used for detection of keratoconus progression like Kmax, Km, K2, PachyMin, D-Index, Corneal Astigmatism and PRC of 3.0 mm centered on the thinnest point. The variations of keratometric readings, D-index and ELEBmax showed positive associations with KCE. Evaluating the performance of Kmax, D-index and KCE as isolated parameters to document keratoconus progression we found a sensitivity of 49%, 82% and 77% and a specificity of 100%, 95% and 66% to detect keratoconus progression (p < 0.001 for all). This difference in sensitivity can be explained by the changes in keratoconus outside the small area represented by Kmax. The inclusion of KCE should be considered in the evaluation of keratoconus progression in conjunction with other variables to increase the reliability of our clinical evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent findings of increased Choroidal Thickness (CT) in Keratoconus (KC) patients raised the question of whether CT could be an indicator of progressive KC. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated and compared the choroidal profile in progressive and non-progressive KC. We ran a cross-sectional observational study in 76 patients diagnosed with KC, age 14–30, to assess KC progression. Progression was defined as when at least two of the studied variables confirmed progression (Kmax, Km, PachyMin, D-Index, Astig, K2, 3 mm PCR). Included patients performed a Spectralis Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) with enhanced depth image (EDI) technology to evaluate choroidal profile. Choroidal measurements were taken subfoveally and at 500 µm intervals from the fovea, in 7 different locations, and compared between groups. Multivariate linear regression analyses were also performed to assess the influence of CT in KC progression. Thirty-six eyes (47.4%) were classified as KC progressors. The mean subfoveal CT observed in the total sample was 382.0 (± 97.0) μm. The comparison between groups (progressive and non-progressive KC) showed no differences in the locations evaluated (mean subfoveal CT difference between groups was 2.4 μm, p = 0.915). In the multivariate analysis CT seems not be influenced by KC progression (B = 6.72 μm, 95% CI − 40.09 to 53.53, p = 0.775). Assessment of choroidal profile does not appear to be a useful tool to differentiate progressive and non-progressive KC. Further research is needed in order to better understand the role of choroid in KC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]