Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 64104

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : April | Volume : 18 | Issue : 4 | Page : NC05 - NC11 Full Version

Morphological Changes of Corneal Keratocytes following Surface Ablation Laser Surgery: An Observational Study from the United Kingdom


Published: April 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/68831.19225
Daphné Gunness, Indrajit Banerjee, Jared Robinson, Teeluck Kumar Gunness

1. Junior Clinical Fellow, Department of Ophthalmology, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Wales, United Kingdom. 2. Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam Medical College, Belle Rive, Mauritius. 3. Junior Doctor, Department of Medicine, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam Medical College, Belle Rive, Mauritius. 4. Director, Department of Cardiology, Cardiac Centre, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam National Hospital (SSRN), Pamplemousses, Mauritius.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Indrajit Banerjee,
Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam Medical College, Belle Rive, Mauritius.
E-mail: indrajit18@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Laser Subepithelial Keratomileusis (LASEK) is a type of surface ablation laser surgery that offers a solution to patients for correcting their ametropia. In rare instances, LASEK has been associated with complications such as the development of postoperative haze, infection, and poor visual outcomes. Imaging features detected within the patient’s cornea using In-Vivo Confocal Microscopy (IVCM) have aided in identifying the cellular basis of complications like these.

Aim: To observe and describe the morphological changes seen on IVCM in patients following LASEK surgery.

Materials and Methods: This observational study aimed to assess the quantity and morphology of anterior and posterior keratocytes in adults aged 18 years and older. Five participants (9 eyes) who presented for follow-up appointments following LASEK surgery at Manchester Royal Eye Hospital (MREH), United Kingdom, from July to December 2018 were recruited for the study. The cell counts of the anterior and posterior keratocytes were calculated using the Heidelberg Eye Explorer software. The images were analysed with the Image J program (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA). Nerve fibers were assessed using the ACCMetrics program (University of Manchester, UK). The t-test was used to establish the statistical association between variables.

Results: Morphological changes, such as zones of hyper-reflectivity beneath the epithelium, were observed in all the recruited participants. Immune cells and sub-basal nerve abnormalities were detected in several participants. The number of keratocytes in the anterior stroma of all the participants was found to be much lower compared to that of the control. Only participant number 3 had a greater number of keratocytes in the anterior stromal layer (454 and 514 cells/mm2) compared to the other participants, who had a cell count ranging between 156 to 262 cells/mm2.

Conclusion: It is evident that visible changes are noted both quantitatively and morphologically in both the anterior and posterior keratocytes postoperatively. More research is required with larger controlled studies to investigate the IVCM imaging biomarkers and morphological features that represent the wound healing process and the factors influencing visual outcomes, ensuring that postoperative complications can be minimised.

Keywords

Laser therapy, Operative, Ophthalmologic surgical procedures, Refractive errors, Refractive surgical procedures

Ametropia is a common ophthalmological condition resulting from abnormal refraction within the eye, which can cause visual impairment. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that refractive errors causes visual impairment in 153 million people globally (1),(2). The four main types of ametropia are myopia (short-sightedness), hypermetropia (long-sightedness), astigmatism, and presbyopia. The most frequent among these is myopia (also known as near-sightedness) (3),(4). The use of spectacles is both the oldest and the most popular method of correction (5). The second most common treatment modality is contact lenses, which, in their own right, improve the patients’ mobility and sporting capabilities but carry inherent risks of infection. If not used properly, contact lenses may damage the cornea. The use of contact lenses also comes with a learning curve, with many patients aborting the process early on due to the difficult trial period (6).

A surgical treatment modality is LASEK, which is a relatively recent and popular type of surface ablation laser surgery offering a solution to patients willing to correct their ametropia by changing the shape of their cornea. LASEK surgery was developed in the 1980s and has become a popular method for the correction of such refractive errors, with the aim of spectacle and contact lens independence (7). As with all the modalities of treatment, LASEK has both advantages and disadvantages. In the majority of cases, the procedure is painless, rapid, and highly effective with excellent results, often allowing patients to be discharged on the same day of the procedure. However, there are cases where complications occur, and as a result, the vision of the patient may be further compromised. In rare instances, LASEK can be associated with complications such as the development of postoperative haze that can contribute to a poor visual outcome (7). Many studies have been conducted to understand the long-term effect of such procedures on the cornea, most prominently the morphological changes evident in the corneal keratocytes (7),(8),(9).

A better understanding of the postoperative morphological impacts of LASEK will provide insight into how to reduce postoperative complications. There is a lack in the available literature on the postoperative morphological changes noted after such LASEK procedures, making the novelty of this study and its future implications valuable and demanding further investigation and attention. This research aimed to observe corneal cellular changes in-vivo in the stroma of patients who had undergone LASEK surgery through the use of IVCM. The study includes the analysis of keratocyte cellular density, the Sub-Basal nerve Plexus (SBP), and the description of abnormal findings, such as the presence of dendritiform cells or zones of scar tissue.

Material and Methods

This observational study aimed to assess the quantity and morphology of anterior and posterior keratocytes following LASEK surgery conducted at MREH, United Kingdom, from July to December 2018. The study was reviewed and approved by the North East York Research Committee (NREC) as part of a broader project entitled “Corneal imaging uses to monitor corneal disease and treatment” with approval no. (Reference: 15/NE/0363). All participants provided informed consent. This research was conducted based on the Ethical Principles for Medical Research involving Human Subjects guidelines as per the Declaration of Helsinki.

Inclusion criteria: Adults aged 18 years and older who had undergone LASEK surgery for myopia or astigmatism at MREH were recruited. Participants were required to read and understand the provided patient information sheet, ask questions to the researcher, and provide consent by signing the informed consent document. One healthy adult volunteer served as a control.

Exclusion criteria: Patients with ocular infections, painful eyes, or previous intraocular injuries. Children were not included in the study, and there was no limit to the timeframe between the LASEK surgery and assessment.

Sample size: Five participants (nine eyes) who had undergone LASEK surgery for myopia or astigmatism from July to December 2018 at MREH, United Kingdom, were recruited for follow-up appointments. The primary treatment for refractive errors is typically through the use of spectacles and contact lenses, with LASEK surgery being a relatively recent and rare surgical treatment modality.

Methodology and Parameters Studied

LASEK Surgery: Patients in this study underwent the same LASEK surgery technique. The eye was anesthetised with preservative-free Minims proxymetacaine 0.5% eyedrops (Bausch and Lomb, UK). A trephine was used to mark a circular area with a diameter of 9 mm for debriding the corneal epithelium. A 20% ethanol solution was topically applied to this area for 20 to 30 seconds, and the loosened epithelial flap was then elevated. Subsequently, the underlying stroma was ablated using the ALEGRETTO Wave Excimer Laser (WaveLight Laser Technologie AG, Germany). The Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3 (HRT 3), a laser scanning in-vivo confocal microscope (Heidelberg Engineering, Germany), was utilised to obtain high-resolution images of the corneal layers. Images were obtained using the volume scan mode. Each volume scan consisted of a z-stack of 40 successive images automatically acquired with a ±2 μm distance between consecutive images. Images were taken at various depths of the entire cornea, including the epithelium, anterior stroma, posterior stroma, and endothelium.

Image analysis: Images were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The cell counts of the anterior and posterior keratocytes were calculated using the Heidelberg Eye Explorer software. The images were analysed with the Image J program (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA). Nerve fibers were assessed using the ACCMetrics program (University of Manchester, UK).

Statistical Analysis

The data was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software for Windows version 26.0. The t-test was used to establish the statistical association between variables. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Out of the six patients, five had undergone LASEK surgery and were considered cases. Confocal images from the eyes of a 21-year-old male volunteer who hadn’t undergone LASEK surgery were taken as a further control (Table/Fig 1).

Control: The epithelium was composed of small polygonal and regular cells. On IVCM, they appeared as dark cells surrounded by hyper-reflective borders. The SBP was situated at the level of the Bowman’s membrane. Nerves appeared as thin longitudinal hyper-reflective structures. Keratocyte nuclei were visible as bean-shaped hyper-reflective structures, and their processes were normally transparent (thus invisible on IVCM). The last visible layer was the endothelium (Descemet’s membrane, which sits just above the endothelium, is not visible on IVCM). The endothelium was composed of regular bright polygonal cells. The IVCM images from the control showing the normal layers of the cornea are displayed in (Table/Fig 2).

Image analysis: The IVCM images from participant one’s right and left eyes are shown in (Table/Fig 3),(Table/Fig 4), respectively.

Participant-1 had undergone the LASEK procedure in both eyes. Overall, the basal layer of the epithelium of the right eye appeared to be normal (Table/Fig 3)a. There were two zones of hyper-reflectivity within the deeper sections of the epithelium extending into the anterior stroma (yellow arrows), which would be consistent with that of a dendritiform cell type. Smaller cells were also present in (Table/Fig 3) shown in the yellow circles and measuring less than 10 μm. It was hypothesised that these could all be subtypes of immune cells. The epithelium of the left eye of participant-1 is illustrated in (Table/Fig 4). There was no remarkable difference between this epithelium and the control. An extensive number of granules were found in both eyes of participant 1 (red circles, (Table/Fig 3),(Table/Fig 4)).

Participant-2 had undergone the LASEK procedure most recently in both eyes (four months prior to the study). It is important to note that subepithelial haze was noticed in his right eye on slit-lamp biomicroscopy on the day of the assessment. The patient’s visual acuity was better in his left eye (-0.10 on LogMar) compared to his right eye (+0.1 on LogMar) on the day of the assessment. Zones of poorly defined and opaque hyper-reflective tissue were detectable in both eyes (yellow arrows, (Table/Fig 5),(Table/Fig 6)).

Participant 3 had undergone LASEK in both eyes five months prior to the day of assessment. The epithelium in the left eye and right eye of participant three showed no abnormalities ((Table/Fig 7)a,(Table/Fig 8)a). Zones of poorly defined and opaque hyper-reflective tissue were detectable, as well as dendritiform cells ((Table/Fig 7),(Table/Fig 8), white arrows).

Participant 4 had undergone LASEK surgery in both eyes seven years prior to the assessment. Following surgery, he developed complications, including epithelial defects, formation of an epithelial cyst, and subsequent scarring. The visual acuity in his right eye was at logMAR +0.84 at the time of assessment and -0.08 for his left eye. IVCM imaging in (Table/Fig 9) shows a normal epithelial cell appearance but with the presence of small dendritiform cells (yellow circles in ‘a’). (Table/Fig 9)b shows swathes of hyper-reflective material following Bowman’s membrane collagen fibrils (orange arrows) and prominent corneal nerves (red arrows (Table/Fig 9)b,c). Further linear structures were noted in the stroma (orange arrows in ‘d’) that may represent corneal nerve branches. (Table/Fig 10)c shows prominent, tortuous, and beaded corneal nerve fibers in the basal corneal plexus (red arrows) with associated dendritiform small cells (yellow circles), along with prominent keratocyte nuclei in (Table/Fig 10)d (yellow arrow) signifying an activated keratocyte phenotype in the left eye (Table/Fig 9),(Table/Fig 10).

Participant 5 had undergone the laser surgery eight months on the right eye prior to being assessed for this study. Only the right eye could be assessed due to the participant’s time constraints. Zones of poorly defined and opaque hyper-reflective tissue were detectable (Table/Fig 11)c. Corneal nerves appeared beaded and slightly tortuous (red arrows in (Table/Fig 11)b), and small hyper-reflective opacities associated with keratocytes are seen in the red circles in (Table/Fig 11)d.

Keratocyte cell count: A variation between the number of cells per square millimeter within the different layers of the stroma of each patient’s cornea was observed. A single control cell count was obtained per layer, a t-test was performed in order to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between the control and the participants’ keratocyte cell counts (Table/Fig 12).

The number of keratocytes in the anterior stroma of the participants was lower than that of the control cornea. Only participant number 3 had a greater number of keratocytes in the anterior stromal layer (454 and 514 cells/mm2) compared to the other participants, who had a cell count which varied from 156 to 262 cells/mm2. It is interesting to note that the differences between the posterior keratocyte cell count of the right and left eyes of the same person are more significant than the differences between different participants. For instance, the posterior keratocyte cell count of participant 3’s left eye is 250 cells/mm2, which is closer to the posterior keratocyte cell count of participant 2’s left eye (227 cells/mm2) compared to participant 3’s right eye (168 cells/mm2).

Nerve fibre assessment using the ACC: Except for the isolated sub-basal nerves mentioned previously, adequate SBP images could not be observed in Participants 1, 2, and 3. This is an important result in itself: either the SBP did not manage to regenerate themselves sufficiently following LASEK surgery, or the scar tissue that formed as a response to the trauma obstructed the visualisation of the corneal basal nerve plexus. The main observation from these results was the increased nerve fiber branching density observed in participant 5. (Table/Fig 13) summarises the nerve analysis obtained from the ACCMetrics software.

Discussion

In this study, morphological changes, such as zones of hyper-reflectivity beneath the epithelium, were observed in all recruited participants. Immune cells and sub-basal nerve abnormalities were detected in several participants.

Epithelium and immune cells: The overall morphology of the corneal epithelium observed in this study was consistent with the literature. It was found that one month following surface-ablation refractive surgery, the epithelial cells regain their typical appearance (10),(11). The presence of small, circular, and hyper-reflective cells in the deepest layers of the epithelium was observed in several of the eyes and was hypothesised to be immune in nature. The review by Guthoff RF et al., examined and classified the different types of leukocytes that are visible on IVCM (12). Dendritiform-shaped cells and smaller round cells were identified in present study. These cells were likely to be Langerhans Cells (LC), and the smaller cells were likely to be other types of leukocytes. LC manifest as cells with long processes which have a typical spider-like or dendritiform appearance with IVCM (12). These cells are similar to the ones observed in participant 3. The presence of these cells could indicate an inflammatory reaction, as they appear enlarged compared to the smaller LCs found in the central basal cornea in healthy participants (13). There was no clear relationship between the presence of dendritiform cells and the participant’s visual outcome in this small case study; however, further research is needed to confirm if there is any association.

Zones of scar tissue: Zones of poorly defined and opaque hyper-reflective tissue were detectable in all participants. This was consistent with other research studies that found patients undergoing surface-ablation surgery revealed increased subepithelial reflectivity (10),(11). This result was particularly interesting considering that not all of the participants had clinical haze detectable on slit lamp microscopy or reduced visual acuity (except participant 2). Moilanen JA et al., made a similar observation in their study assessing long-term morphological changes of the cornea five years following Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) (14). More extensive zones of subepithelial hyper-reflectivity were observed in the right eye of participant 2, which appeared to be in Bowman’s membrane, and this eye was also noted to have the presence of visible subepithelial corneal haze on slit-lamp microscopy. This participant also presented with reduced visual acuity in this right eye compared to that of the left eye. The morphology of scarring that present study reported in Bowman’s membrane may be indicative of hyper-reflective scar tissue and may contribute to the participant’s reduced visual acuity.

Keratocyte appearance: Following refractive surgery, keratocytes are “activated” and display a different morphology on IVCM than when they are quiescent (15),(16). In this study, on the IVCM images, enlarged hyper-reflective keratocyte nuclei and cellular processes in the right eye of participant 1, the left eye of participant 2, and the right eye of participant 5 were observed. The presence of keratocyte activation in these IVCM images may indicate prolonged resolution of inflammation in the corneal stroma even months post-LASEK (17),(18),(19). These activated keratocytes or myofibroblasts are believed to express α-Smooth Muscle Actin (α-SMA) and are thought to be responsible for the development of fibrosis and haze following surface-ablation surgery (15). Møller-Pedersen T et al., reported the presence of these activated keratocytes a week after PRK in the anterior stroma. Only a few of these keratocytes were observed in the posterior stroma of participant 1, who had LASEK seven months prior to the assessment (11). On the contrary, the vast majority of these activated keratocytes were observed in participant 4, who had surgery seven years before the assessment. To the best of our knowledge, such morphological appearances of activated keratocytes have not previously been reported and have yet to be observed in patients after such a long period post-LASEK. In this participant, the co-occurrence of swathes of hyper-reflective material mimicking collagen lamellae in Bowman’s membrane, as well as the activated keratocyte morphology, may have contributed to the poor visual outcome of this patient.

Other morphological changes: The presence of fine hyper-reflective foci <10 microns in diameter on IVCM observed in the study of Møller-Pedersen T et al., who referred to them as “punctate deposits,” are believed to be the results of keratocyte apoptosis or necrosis (11). These granules were also observed in other conditions, such as keratitis (20). Moreover, it has been noticed that these deposits seem to be present and numerous in IVCM imaging in long-term contact lens wearers (21). An extensive number of granules were found in both eyes of participant 1, but data was not collected regarding contact lens use prior to the LASEK procedure.

Patel DV and McGhee CN reported the results of 19 studies that had presented their keratocyte cell count results (16). The results of the keratocyte cell counts vary significantly across the studies and depending on the gender and age range of patients studied. For instance, Popper M et al., reported a normal human anterior keratocyte cell count of 258 cells/mm2, whereas Pisella PJ et al., obtained an anterior keratocyte cell count of 1060±468 cells/mm2 (22),(23). Both of these studies examined normal eyes using the white light-based Scanning-Slit Confocal Microscope (SSCM), which has lower resolution than the HRT3 laser scanning IVCM. Similar findings are noted with the present study; however, a lower anterior cell count ranging from 150 to 250 cells/mm2 was noted in all of the patients barring one.

SBP: Present study detected a greater corneal nerve branch density in participant 5. The SBP of participants 1, 2, and 3 could not be visualised on IVCM because of scar tissue. Further studies are needed with more controls and more participants to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between the morphological features of the SBP of patients post-LASEK as compared with that of the normal SBP. A prospective study from Darwish T et al., found that, although corneal sensitivity came back to normal three months following laser refractive surgery, the structure of SBP was still abnormal six months following the procedure (24). It would be interesting and relevant to investigate the link between SBP regeneration following LASEK and the keratocyte cell count, as a study from Kalteniece A et al., demonstrated that corneal nerve damage in diabetic patients is linked to reduced anterior, mid, and posterior keratocytes (25).

One of the strengths of this study lies in its emphasis on real-world applications. By linking morphological changes to surface-ablation laser surgery, this study bridges the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical implications. This connection enhances the study’s relevance to ophthalmologists, refractive surgeons, and anyone interested in advancements in laser eye surgery.

Limitation(s)

The study was limited by a relatively small sample size of patients from a hospital in the United Kingdom. A larger multicentric study and a more diverse sample could enhance the generalisability of the results to a broader population.

Conclusion

It is evident that visible changes were noted both quantitatively and morphologically in both the anterior and posterior keratocytes postoperatively. More research is required with larger controlled studies in order to investigate the IVCM imaging biomarkers and morphological features that represent the wound healing process and the factors that influence visual outcomes to ensure that postoperative complications can be minimised. A longitudinal study with extended follow-up periods would provide a more comprehensive understanding of these morphological changes over time.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank Dr. Chantal Hillarby, Mr. Arun Brahma, and Dr. Jaya Chidambaram for their invaluable contributions to this study.

References

1.
World Health Organization. (n.d.). Blindness and vision impairment: Refractive Errors. World Health Organization. Cited [2023 November 25] Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/blindness-and-vision-impairment-refractive-errors.
2.
Shi XY, Ke YF, Jin N, Zhang HM, Wei RH, Li XR. The prevalence of vision impairment and refractive error in 3654 first year students at Tianjin Medical University. Int J Ophthalmol. 2018;11(10):1698-703. Doi: 10.18240/ijo.2018.10.19. PMID: 30364305; PMCID: PMC6192952. [crossref]
3.
Abdulsalam HO, Muhammad N, Pam V, Oladigbolu KK. Pattern of ametropia, presbyopia, and barriers to the uptake of spectacles in adult patients attending a general hospital in Kaduna State. J West Afr Coll Surg. 2022;12(1):28-33. Doi: 10.4103/jwas.jwas_70_22. Epub 2022 Aug 23. PMID: 36203913; PMCID: PMC9531742. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Schiefer U, Kraus C, Baumbach P, Ungewiß J, Michels R. Refractive errors. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016;113(41):693-702. Doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2016.0693. PMID: 27839543; PMCID: PMC5143802.[crossref][PubMed]
5.
Ong E, Grice K, Held R, Thorn F, Gwiazda J. Effects of spectacle intervention on the progression of myopia in children. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76(6):363-69. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Heus P, Verbeek JH, Tikka C. Optical correction of refractive error for preventing and treating eye symptoms in computer users. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4(4):CD009877. Doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009877.pub2. PMID: 29633784; PMCID: PMC6494484. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Taneri S, Zieske JD, Azar DT. Evolution, techniques, clinical outcomes, and pathophysiology of LASEK: Review of the literature. Surv Ophthalmol. 2004;49(6):576-602. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Ambrosio Jr RE, Jardim D, Netto MV, Wilson SE. Management of unsuccessful LASIK surgery. Compr Ophthalmol Update. 2007;8(3):125-41.
9.
Chung A, Brahma A. LASIK eye surgery: Standard and safety issues. Clinical Risk. 2006;12(2):70-73. [crossref]
10.
Frueh BE, Cadez R, Böhnke M. In-vivo confocal microscopy after photorefractive keratectomy in humans. A prospective, long-term study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116(11):1425-31. Doi: 10.1001/archopht.116.11.1425. PMID: 9823340. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Møller-Pedersen T, Vogel M, Li HF, Petroll WM, Cavanagh HD, Jester JV. Quantification of stromal thinning, epithelial thickness, and corneal haze after photorefractive keratectomy using in-vivo confocal microscopy. Ophthalmology. 1997;104(3):360-68. Doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(97)30307-8. PMID: 9082257. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Guthoff RF, Zhivov A, Stachs O. In-vivo confocal microscopy, an inner vision of the cornea- A major review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;37(1):100-17. Doi: 10.1111/ j.1442-9071.2009.02016.x. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Zhivov A, Stave J, Vollmar B, Guthoff R. In-vivo confocal microscopic evaluation of Langerhans cell density and distribution in the normal human corneal epithelium. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243(10):1056-61. Doi: 10.1007/s00417- 004-1075-8. Epub 2005 Oct 20. PMID: 15856272. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Moilanen JA, Vesaluoma MH, Müller LJ, Tervo TM. Long-term corneal morphology after PRK by in-vivo confocal microscopy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(3):1064-69. Doi: 10.1167/iovs.02-0247. PMID: 12601030. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Zhivov A, Stachs O, Kraak R, Guthoff R. Zelluläre Lasermikroskopie zur Detektion von Infiltraten und Ulzera der Hornhaut [Cellular laser microscopy of corneal ulcer and infiltrate]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2008;225(1):86-90. German. Doi: 10.1055/s- 2008-1027130. PMID: 18236377. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Patel DV, McGhee CN. Contemporary in-vivo confocal microscopy of the living human cornea using white light and laser scanning techniques: A major review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;35(1):71-88. Doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2007.01423.x. PMID: 17300580. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Patel DV, McGhee CN. Quantitative analysis of in-vivo confocal microscopy images: A review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2013;58(5):466-75. Doi: 10.1016/j. survophthal.2012.12.003. Epub 2013 Feb 28. PMID: 23453401. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
McLaren JW, Bourne WM, Patel SV. Automated assessment of keratocyte density in stromal images from the ConfoScan 4 confocal microscope. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(4):1918-26. Doi: 10.1167/iovs.09-4186. Epub 2009 Nov 5. PMID: 19892869; PMCID: PMC2868412. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
McLaren JW, Patel SV, Nau CB, Bourne WM. Automated assessment of keratocyte density in clinical confocal microscopy of the corneal stroma. J Microsc. 2008;229(Pt 1):21-31. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2007.01870.x. PMID: 18173641; PMCID: PMC2700340. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Chidambaram JD, Prajna NV, Palepu S, Lanjewar S, Shah M, Elakkiya S, et al. In-vivo confocal microscopy cellular features of host and organism in bacterial, fungal, and acanthamoeba keratitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;190:24-33. Doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.03.010. Epub 2018 Mar 14. PMID: 29550185; PMCID: PMC5972002. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Villani E, Baudouin C, Efron N, Hamrah P, Kojima T, Patel SV, et al. In-vivo confocal microscopy of the ocular surface: From bench to bedside. Curr Eye Res. 2014;39(3):213-31. Doi: 10.3109/02713683.2013.842592. Epub 2013 Nov 11. PMID: 24215436; PMCID: PMC3960287. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Popper M, Morgado AM, Quadrado MJ, Van Best JA. Corneal cell density measurement in-vivo by scanning slit confocal microscopy: Method and validation. Ophthalmic Res. 2004;36(5):270-76. Doi: 10.1159/000081207. PMID: 15583433. [crossref][PubMed]
23.
Pisella PJ, Auzerie O, Bokobza Y, Debbasch C, Baudouin C. Evaluation of corneal stromal changes in-vivo after laser in situ keratomileusis with confocal microscopy. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(10):1744-50. Doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00771-0. PMID: 11581044. [crossref][PubMed]
24.
Darwish T, Brahma A, O’Donnell C, Efron N. Subbasal nerve fiber regeneration after LASIK and LASEK assessed by noncontact esthesiometry and in-vivo confocal microscopy: Prospective study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33(9):1515- 21. Doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.05.023. PMID: 17720064. [crossref][PubMed]
25.
Kalteniece A, Ferdousi M, Azmi S, Marshall A, Soran H, Malik RA. Keratocyte density is reduced and related to corneal nerve damage in diabetic neuropathy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018;59(8):3584-90. Doi: 10.1167/iovs.18-23889. PMID: 30025082.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/68831.19225

Date of Submission: Nov 28, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Jan 05, 2024
Date of Acceptance: Feb 09, 2024
Date of Publishing: Apr 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Dec 02, 2023
• Manual Googling: Jan 19, 2024
• iThenticate Software: Feb 07, 2024 (6%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 6

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com