Therapeutic visual rehabilitation in a patient with high hyperopia and flat cornea years after radial keratotomy

A 51-year-old man was referred for refractive surgery evaluation. Spectacle dependence and poor visual quality in both eyes was his chief complaint. He cannot tolerate contact lenses. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was 20/40 in both eyes. Manifest refraction was +5.25 -2.25 @ 90 (20/40) in the right eye and +6.25 -2.25 @ 105 (20/40) in the left eye. The patient had a history of radial keratotomy (RK) almost 30 years ago in both eyes and at the slitlamp presented 8 RK incisions, proportionally spaced between one another. All incisions were closed, and there were no relevant signs of scarring. The patient denied any history of ocular trauma, systemic disease, or medications. Corneal topography with different technologies revealed an irregular pattern with marked central flattening in both eyes, with some points below 30 diopters (D) (Supplemental Figures 1 and 2, available at http://links.lww.com/JRS/A862 and http://links.lww.com/JRS/A863, respectively). There were no signs of cataract, and fundus examination was normal. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the right eye revealed a more homogeneous thickness pattern, little variation between the thinnest and thickest areas, and adequate transparency (Figure 1). In the left eye, there is wide variability between the thinnest and thickest stromal points, with annular thinning and central thickening (Figure 2). Both eyes show marked epithelial irregularity. Considering this patient's current ocular status, how would you reach visual rehabilitation? Because he is contact lens intolerant, would you consider surface ablation, for example, photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) with mitomycin-C (MMC)? If that were the case, would you think of an optimized or a topography-guided (TG) treatment? Would you immediately consider a corneal transplant option? Would you instead consider a more conservative approach? Which one and why? (c) 2023 Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS