Comparison of Corneal Deformation Parameters in Keratoconic and Normal Eyes Using a Non-contact Tonometer With a Dynamic Ultra-High-Speed Scheimpflug Camera
- 1 September 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SLACK, Inc. in Journal of Refractive Surgery
- Vol. 33 (9), 625-631
- https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x-20170621-03
Abstract
To evaluate and compare biomechanical properties in normal and keratoconic eyes using a dynamic ultra-high-speed Scheimpflug camera equipped with a non-contact tonometer (Corvis ST; Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany). This retrospective study evaluated 89 eyes (47 normal, 42 keratoconic) and a validation arm of 72 eyes (33 normal, 39 keratoconic) using the Corvis ST. A diagnosis of keratoconus was established by clinical findings confirmed by topography and tomography. Dynamic corneal response parameters collected by the Corvis ST (A1 velocity, deformation amplitude [DA], DA Ratio Max 1mm, and Max Inverse Radius) and a stiffness parameter at first applanation (SP-A1) were incorporated into a novel logistic regression equation (DCR index). Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was used to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the DCR index. DA, DA Ratio Max 1mm, Max Inverse Radius, and SP-A1 were each found to be statistically significantly different between normal and keratoconic eyes (Mann-Whitney test [independent samples]; P = .0077, < .0001, < .0001, and < .0001, respectively; significance level: P < .05). DCR index demonstrated high sensitivity, specificity, and overall correct detection rate (92.9%, 95.7%, and 94.4%, respectively; AUC = 98.5). The sensitivity and overall correct detection rate improved when eyes with Topographical Keratoconus Classification grades (TKC) greater than 0 were reevaluated (from 92.9% to 96.6% and from 94.4% to 96.1%, respectively). Combining multiple biomechanical parameters (A1 velocity, DA, DA Ratio Max 1mm, Max Inverse Radius, and SP-A1) into a logistic regression equation allows for high sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing keratoconic from normal eyes. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(9):625-631.].This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Biomechanical Evaluation of Cornea in Topographically Normal Relatives of Patients With KeratoconusCornea, 2013
- Identification of Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea: The Ocular Response AnalyzerCurrent Eye Research, 2012
- Assessing Corneal Hysteresis Using the Ocular Response AnalyzerOptometry and Vision Science, 2012
- What Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea Are Relevant for the Clinician?Survey of Ophthalmology, 2007
- Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post-laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyesJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 2007
- Changes in Corneal Biomechanics and Intraocular Pressure Following LASIK Using Static, Dynamic, and Noncontact TonometryAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 2007
- Biomechanics and wound healing in the corneaExperimental Eye Research, 2006
- Collagenolytic Proteinases in KeratoconusCornea, 2006
- Central Corneal Thickness and Corneal Hysteresis Associated With Glaucoma DamageAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 2006
- Biomechanical properties of keratoconus and normal corneasExperimental Eye Research, 1980