The LASIK industry & the FDA have conspired since LASIK's inception to purposely withhold information vital to the public in making a truly informed LASIK decision. With Lasikdecision.com, The hope is to show you what the industry and FDA would not and did not even think of doing until LASIK casualties started speaking out, and yet, they still did NOTHING.
High Interocular Corneal Symmetry in Average Simulated Keratometry, PDF Print E-mail
Monday, 12 December 2005 19:00

SOURCE

Central Corneal Thickness, and Posterior Elevation

Optometry & Vision Science. 82(5):428-431, May 2005.

MYROWITZ, ELLIOTT H. OD, MPH; KOUZIS, ANTHONY C. PhD; O'BRIEN, TERRENCE P. MD

Abstract:

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess interocular corneal symmetry in average simulated keratometry, corneal thickness, and posterior corneal elevation.

Methods: This retrospective analysis included data from scanning slit topography (Orbscan II; Bausch and Lomb, Rochester, NY) on 242 eyes from 121 consecutive patients undergoing standard evaluation for consideration of elective laser vision correction. The symmetry between the right and left eye in average simulated keratometry, minimum central corneal thickness, and posterior corneal elevation was assessed by comparative data analysis.

Results:  Simulated keratometry ranged from 39.9 to 48.6 D. The interocular difference in average simulated keratometry was 0.47 D (standard deviation [SD] 0.43). The interocular Pearson correlation coefficient for average simulated keratometry was 0.90 (p < 0.001). The range of minimum corneal thickness was 432 to 628 [mu]m. The interocular Pearson correlation coefficient for minimum central corneal thickness was 0.95 (p < 0.001). Right and left eye minimum corneal thickness differed by an average 8 [mu]m (SD 7). The range of posterior elevation was -4 to 54 [mu]m. The average difference in posterior corneal elevation between the right and left eye was 6 [mu]m (SD 5). The interocular Pearson correlation coefficient for posterior corneal elevation was 0.72 (p < 0.001). The average posterior elevation was 19 [mu]m (SD 11).

Conclusions: Although a wide range of values exists in simulated keratometry, minimum corneal thickness, and posterior corneal elevation, interocular symmetry in all these parameters was very high in this group of consecutive patients. Asymmetry of these interocular parameters may warrant repeat clinical testing for accuracy and may predict corneal abnormalities. Normative data on posterior cornea elevation is presented. This study points out potentially clinically important high interocular corneal symmetry data in simulated keratometry, corneal thickness, and posterior corneal elevation.