Observational studyIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Corneal biomechanics with CORVIS-ST in post-keratoplasty corneas.
Observational study in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeComparative evaluation of the corneal biomechanical parameters by the dynamic corneal response imaging with CORVIS-ST ST in normal and post-keratoplasty eyes.
methodsCross-sectional observational study of CORVIS-ST imaging of 150 normal corneas and 150 post-keratoplasty corneas was done to evaluate corneal biomechanics of normal Asian-Indian corneas and post-keratoplasty corneas. Data on demographic details, postoperative period, visual acuity (UCVA, BCVA) (logmar units), refraction, axial length (D), corneal topography Scheimpflug's imaging with Pentacam [Anterior-K1(AK1), Anterior-K2 (AK2), Posterior-K1(PK1), PosteriorK2(PK2), Mean keratometry (Kmean), Keratometry maximum (Kmax), Q-value, D-value, Thinnest pachymetry (TP), Corneal elevation [anterior (CE ant) and posterior (CE post)], CORVIS-ST imaging (bIOP, 1 st and 2 nd Appl time HCT, 1 st Appl length, DA, TBI, CBI, HC rad, Vel in and out, DA ratio, IR, Inv CR, SSI, SPA1, ARTh) were recorded.
resultsComparative evaluation of CORVIS-ST in 150 normal corneas [mean age 32.54 ± 10 (9-68) years] and 150 post-keratoplasty corneas [mean age 35.14 ± 16.96 (8-72) years; PK (58), DSAEK (29), DALK (58), HALK (8), and SALK (3)] noted 18 parameters (bIOP, 1 st and 2 nd Appl time HCT, 1 st Appl length, DA, TBI, CBI, HC rad, Vel in and out, DA ratio, IR, Inv CR, SSI, SPA1, ARTh) and showed that 12 of these were statistically different in post-keratoplasty corneas. Parameters of DA, TBI, CBI, IR, and Inv CR were higher, whereas HC rad, SSI, SPA1, and ARTh showed significantly lesser values in post-keratoplasty corneas as compared to normal corneas. Subgroup analysis (PK, DSAEK, DALK, HALK) showed eyes that underwent DSAEK had biomechanical values closest to that of normal corneas. Post-DALK in comparison to post-PK corneas showed significantly higher values in CBI and IR, and lower values in HC rad, SSI, and ARTh (0.87 ± 0.17, 9.9 ± 3.5, 0.85 ± 0.25, 190.92 ± 119.06 and 0.71 ± 0.25, 8.19 ± 1.92, 1.02 ± 0.38, and 340.90 ± 178.37, respectively). Correlational analysis showed significant mild positive correlation of CBI with corneal curvature in normal and post-PK corneas ( P = 0.004 and 0.040, respectively).
conclusionPost-keratoplasty corneas were seen to have lesser biomechanical strength as compared to normal corneas. Post-DSAEK corneas had a better biomechanical strength than other groups and closest biomechanics to normal corneas. Post-DALK in comparison to post-PK corneas showed a lower biomechanical strength in our study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.