Impact of keratorefractive surgery type on the interpretation of intraocular pressure measurements: the role of corneal topographic and biomechanical remodeling

Background. Keratorefractive surgery is widely used to correct myopia; however, surgery-induced changes in corneal shape inevitably affect corneal biomechanical properties. These changes reduce the accuracy of intraocular pressure measurements used in glaucoma assessment and complicate the evaluation of the risk of iatrogenic corneal ectasia in patients who have undergone surgery.

Purpose: to evaluate how the relationships between corneal topographic and biomechanical parameters vary according to the type of keratorefractive surgery and to determine their implications for the interpretation of intraocular pressure measurements.

Materials and methods. A total of 61 participants (121 eyes) aged 21–60 years were examined. The control group included 16 participants (31 eyes) with no history of ocular surgery. The study group included 45 patients (90 eyes) who had undergone LASIK (26 eyes), femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK; 32 eyes), or photorefractive keratectomy (32 eyes). The examination included corneal topography using the Pentacam, assessment of corneal biomechanical parameters using the Ocular Response Analyzer, including corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor, and elastotonometry.

Results. Following LASIK and FS-LASIK, IOP measurements were underestimated: corneal-compensated intraocular pressure was 1.69–2.62 mm Hg lower and Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure was 3.23–4.18 mm Hg lower than in the control group. After photorefractive keratectomy, corneal-compensated intraocular pressure and Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure values were comparable to those in the control group. Procedures involving corneal flap creation were characterized predominantly by inverse correlations between corneal biomechanical parameters and corneal curvature. The strongest correlations were observed for corneal resistance factor and corneal hysteresis in the central and inner paracentral zones (|r| up to 0.6; p < 0.01). After photorefractive keratectomy and in intact corneas, direct correlations between these parameters and corneal curvature predominated.

Conclusion. Different keratorefractive surgery techniques affect corneal biomechanical remodeling differently. These effects should be considered when interpreting tonometry results and assessing the risk of iatrogenic complications.

1. Hopf S, Schuster A. Epidemiology of Myopia: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Effects of Myopia. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2024;241(10):1119–1125. doi: 10.1055/a-2340-1790

2. Morgan IG. Is there an impending epidemic of myopia in Southeast Asia? An appraisal of the evidence. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2024;13(6):100113. doi: 10.1016/j.apjo.2024.100113

3. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, Jong M et al. Global Prevalence of Myopia and High Myopia and Temporal Trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(5):1036–1042. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.006

4. Kim TI, Alió Del Barrio JL, Wilkins M, Cochener B, Ang M. Refractive surgery. Lancet. 2019;393(10185):2085–2098. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33209-4

5. Bao F, Lopes BT, Zheng X, Ji Y, Wang J, Elsheikh A. Corneal Biomechanics Losses Caused by Refractive Surgery. Curr Eye Res. 2023;48(2):137–143. doi: 10.1080/02713683.2022.2103569

6. European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 5^th Edition. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105(Suppl 1):1–169. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-egsguidelines

7. Moshirfar M, Tukan AN, Bundogji N, Liu HY, McCabe SE, Ronquillo YC, Hoopes PC. Ectasia After Corneal Refractive Surgery : A Systematic Review. Ophthalmol Ther 2021;10(4):753–776. doi: 10.1007/s40123-021-00383-w

8. Антонов АА, Козлова ИВ. Коэффициент биомеханического напряжения в оценке степени компенсации внутриглазного давления. Вестник офтальмологии. 2021;5(2):255–261. doi: 10.17116/oftalma2021137052255

9. Antonov AA, Kozlova IV. Coefficient of biomechanical stress in assessment of the degree of intraocular pressure compensation. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2021;137(5-2):255–261. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17116/oftalma2021137052255

10. Knorz MC, Vossmerbaeumer U. Comparison of flap adhesion strength using the Amadeus microkeratome and the IntraLase iFS femtosecond laser in rabbits. J Refract Surg. 2008;24(9):875-8. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20081101-04

11. Kim JY, Kim MJ, Kim TI, Choi HJ, Pak JH, Tchah H. A femtosecond laser creates a stronger flap than a mechanical microkeratome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(2):599-604. doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-0458

12. Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Ohmoto F. Comparison of the changes in corneal biomechanical properties after photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis. Cornea. 2009;28(7):765-769. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181967082

13. Hamilton DR, Johnson RD, Lee N, Bourla N. Differences in the corneal biomechanical effects of surface ablation compared with laser in situ keratomileusis using a microkeratome or femtosecond laser. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(12):2049–2056. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.08.021

14. Hashemi H, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A, Mehravaran S, Panahi P, Asgari S. Corneal Biomechanics After SMILE, Femtosecond-Assisted LASIK, and Photorefractive Keratectomy: A Matched Comparison Study. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2023;12(3):12. doi: 10.1167/tvst.12.3.12

15. Pniakowska Z, Jurowski P, Wierzbowska J. Clinical Evaluation of Corneal Biomechanics following Laser Refractive Surgery in Myopic Eyes : A Review of the Literature. J Clin Med. 2022;12(1):243. doi: 10.3390/jcm12010243

16. Damgaard IB, Reffat M, Hjortdal J. Review of Corneal Biomechanical Properties Following LASIK and SMILE for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism. Open Ophthalmol J. 2018;12:164–174. doi: 10.2174/1874364101812010164

17. Guo H, Hosseini-Moghaddam SM, Hodge W. Corneal biomechanical properties after SMILE versus FLEX, LASIK, LASEK, or PRK : a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019;19(1):167. doi: 10.1186/s12886-019-1165-3