Intracorneal circular ring implant with femtosecond laser: Pocket versus tunnel

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate and compare visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of the intracorneal continuous ring 360° arc (ICCR) versus the intracorneal ring segment 340° arc (ICRS) using femtosecond laser for central keratoconus.

Setting: Research Department, Oftalmosalud, Instituto de Ojos, Lima, Peru.

Methods: Randomized study that included 40 eyes of 32 patients diagnosed with central keratoconus between November 2014 and March 2015. Twenty eyes had an implantation of ICCR (MyoRing, Dioptex GmbH, Austria) through an intrastromal pocket and 20 eyes had an implantation of ICRS (Keraring, Mediphacos, Brazil) through an intrastromal tunnel. Both procedures were performed with a femtosecond laser (LDV Z6 model, Ziemer Ophthalmic Systems AG). Visual acuity (VA), refraction, and Scheimpflug imaging analysis were performed pre- and postoperatively at 1 month and 1 year. Comparisons of means were performed using the Student's t-test.

Results: At 1 year, uncorrected VA improved 0.77 LogMAR (p < 0.001) in the ICCR group and 0.79 LogMAR (p = 0.01) in the ICRS group; mean sphere improvement was 5.13 Diopters (D) in the ICCR group and 6.27 D in the ICRS group (p < 0.001 both); mean Steeper Keratometry improvement was 4.24 D in the ICCR group and 5.53 D in the ICRS group (p < 0.001 both). In the ICCR group, mean decrease in the pachymetry at the thinnest point of the cornea was 32.16 µm (p = 0.01), and in the ICRS group, mean increase was 4.2 µm at 1 year (p = 0.61).

Conclusion: Intracorneal continuous ring 360° arc (ICCR) and intracorneal ring segment 340° (ICRS) are effective treatments for central keratoconus. No significant differences between rings were found on visual acuity, refraction, and keratometry improvement.

Keywords: Circular intracorneal rings; KeraRing; MyoRing; central keratoconus; continuous ICR; femtosecond laser; intrastromal corneal ring.