الفهرس 
1 IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 127 |  |  |
| | | from | 127 | | |
Abstract
As previously discussed, the discrepancy between different maps, axial and tangential here, is too evident to ignore. When it comes to visual outcomes, variables do really matter and need to be explored. Tangential map-guided group could achieve better outcomes, yet no enough explanations.
Limitations in this study are to be addressed too. The relatively small sample size should evoke the need for a larger study that can allow for subgroups’ analysis. Moreover, the aberrations, high-order ones, should be assessed pre- and post-ICRS. Subtypes of HOAs should be discussed separately to delineate them one by one. Posterior corneal surface is the mystery box to open in the future work. A correlation analysis that includes the posterior elevation map as well as posterior surface aberrations could have the clue to the unexplained differences obtained.
Although baseline demographics weren’t significantly different, no one can discard the inherent different nature for each cornea. Corneal hysteresis could address some of these aspects; however unknown factors do exist in the back seats. Our proposal to get around this is to design a self-controlled study. Patients with bilateral keratoconus who will undergo bilateral ICRS should only be considered and randomized: one eye for axial and the other for tangential map. Such high reliability study will greatly highlight how maps-guided decisions truly differ.