Case A: Blurred Vision After LASIK, Causes Unknown. An Epithelial Ingrowth Is Present but It Is Located Superiorly and Far From Visual Axis.

•Scan unsuccessful due to no data point being collected from visual axis.

•Mono-camera system is more prone to optical artifact due to surface irregularity arising from adjacent corneal elevation/opacities.

Case B: Ghost Image After LASIK, Causes Unknown.

•Scan shows flat but otherwise normal cornea.

Case C: Post LASIK, Poor BCVA, Causes Unknown.

•Scan shows central flattening (but within normal limits), inferior flattening, and posterior vaulting.

Is it real? Can such Is it real? Can such ectasia occur in a ectasia occur in a cornea with normal cornea with normal thickness of 573um? thickness of 573um? Does the inferior Does the inferior flattening affect the flattening affect the validity of the data?validity of the data?

Case D: Poor BCVA s/p PRK, With Anterior Stromal Haze, Should We Do PTK On The 313 um Cornea?

•The “thinned” cornea is actually an aberrant reading (ultrasound showed 520um).

•Mono-camera systems are prone to artifactual pachymetry and posterior surface reading, when there is incomplete penetration of light due to corneal haze.

Case D con’t: the contralateral eye

•The same thing, s/p PRK with haze which affects the optical pachymetry, giving an aberrantly thin pachy reading (321 um, ultrasound showed 515um).

Case E: s/p High Myopic Treatment, Flat Cornea, Over-Corrected, Should We Enhance On This 253 um Cornea?

•Ultrasound actually showed 480 um. The artifactual pachy reading is due to the flatness of the cornea which affects the accuracy of mathematical reconstruction (intra/extrapolation) of posterior surface and pachy, which is necessary in a mono-camera system