Hi J
Yes, you're spot on, thinnest local is 407 microns. That's not
too bad, but as you say, not great either. Take it as a good guide figure though rather than a pin-point definitive result. Different topograhic scanners might give different results (maybe 5% or so) and you might also vary from day to day by a smidge. Incidentally, you've got a classic "nipple cone" type of keratoconic artefact, like the bulls-eye in a dart board. I wish I could remember now whether that is one of the easier types to get a lens fit on or not (its either one or the other but I can't remember if it's especially good or bad sorry
) I think it's a "tricky" as any lens will tend to sit on top of the cone if it is too "flat" which you don't want or, if it vaults over the highest point on the cone but is too "steep", the edges press down on the periphery. You don't want that either ! Just my half-remembered take on it, wish I'd paid more attention when the optometrist at one of our conferences was explaining it all... and that's a generalisation for rigid lenses, I don't know what the implications are for soft lenses of that type of cone. Anyhow, fingers crossed that either the resultant shape of your cornea post crosslinking is better and/or you're more tolerant to lenses. Glasses would be a really big win !
Will be very (very !) interesting to do a compare-and-contrast after your crosslinking, if you do go through with that, on the corneal topology. Please do share it with us if you're able. One of the reasons I say that is, we get told a lot of good, encouraging stuff about crosslinking. But when we probe a little deeper, there's not, apparently,
that much of it being done (at least, not that we get to hear about). Which may be why when people post here asking about crosslinking, you don't get a stampede of replies. So real-world experience of people is fantastic and does give some pointers to everyone else.
Best wishes
Chris