Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Purpose To identify preoperative predictors of big bubble (BB) formation during deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) in patients with keratoconus (KC).
Design Retrospective cohort study in an Italian tertiary centre.
Study population Consecutive patients with KC undergoing DALK from January 2021 to July 2023.
Observation procedure Tomographic and topographic data including K-max, K-mean, keratometric astigmatism, thinnest point, mean peripheral corneal thickness, difference between the mean peripheral corneal thickness and the thinnest point (peripheral-minimal corneal thickness), position (central/paracentral) and cone area (%), Amsler-Krumeich classification and anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) analysis to assess the severity stage.
Main outcome measures Rate of BB formation and type; multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyse all preoperative parameters in patients with BB formation versus failure.
Results Pneumatic dissection succeeded in 98 of 140 eyes (70.0%), with 94 type 1 bubbles (67.1%) and four type 2 bubbles (2.9%). BB formation succeeded more frequently in patients with lower K-max (p=0.032), lower K-mean (p=0.010), higher thinnest point (p=0.017), lower peripheral-minimal corneal thickness (p=0.009) and lower Amsler-Krumeich stages (p=0.021). According to the AS-OCT analysis, BB formation was more frequent in the lower stages (p<0.001). After the logistic regression (pseudo-R²=0.176, constant=3.21, 95% CI 1.14 to 5.29, p=0.002), AS-OCT classification was found to be the only factor that predicted BB formation (coefficient=−0.81, 95% CI −1.18 to −0.43, p<0.001).
Conclusions AS-OCT classification is a reliable predictor for BB formation. Tomographic and topographic analyses indicated that a steeper and more ectatic cornea is more prone to BB failure.
- Cornea
- Imaging
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors LL, GV and FS had full access to all the data of the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Guarantors: FS, AL and AP. Study concept and design: LL, GP, RAMCG and AP. Acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data: all authors. Drafting of the manuscript: LL, GV, FS, AL and AP. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors. Statistical analysis: GV. Administrative, technical or material support: CK, RAMCG, MM and GP. Study supervision: GP, RAMCG, CK, MM, AL and AP.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.