Comparison of variables measured with a Scheimpflug device for evaluation of progression and detection of keratoconus.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Child
Cornea
/ diagnostic imaging
Corneal Pachymetry
/ instrumentation
Corneal Topography
/ instrumentation
Disease Progression
Humans
Keratoconus
/ diagnostic imaging
Middle Aged
Regression Analysis
Reproducibility of Results
Vision Disorders
/ diagnostic imaging
Visual Acuity
Young Adult
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 11 2020
09 11 2020
Historique:
received:
26
05
2020
accepted:
05
10
2020
entrez:
10
11
2020
pubmed:
11
11
2020
medline:
4
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Keratoconus is a progressive ectatic corneal disorder, which can result in severe visual impairment. The new ABCD keratoconus classification system allows differentiated description of the disease. Aim of the study was to evaluate the components of this novel staging system (ARC, PRC, thinnest pachymetry) as well as topometric indices, deviation of normality indices, and other parameters in terms of repeatability and reliability. 317 eyes with keratoconus were examined twice with a Scheimpflug device (Pentacam, Oculus). Bland Altman analysis and intraclass correlations were carried out to evaluate the parameters repeatability and reliability. Apart from IHA (ICC = 0.730), all parameters showed excellent reliability (ICC > 0.900). ARC, PRC, thinnest pachymetry, Kmax, CKI, KI, Rmin, and Progression Avg were the best repeatable parameters with relative repeatability values < 2.5%. Other parameters performing well in terms of repeatability were IHD, ISV, IVA, and final D (RR < 13%). Regression analysis revealed consistently high repeatability along all stages of keratoconus for PRC, thinnest pachymetry, and CKI. All parameters of the ABCD staging system showed excellent reliability and repeatability, PRC and thinnest pachymetry even at all stages of keratoconus and can consequently be reliably used in the determination of keratoconus progression.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33168836
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76020-6
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-76020-6
pmc: PMC7652832
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19308Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Ophthalmology. 2008 Sep;115(9):1534-9
pubmed: 18405974
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Br J Ophthalmol. 2019 Apr;103(4):551-557
pubmed: 29858179
Sci Rep. 2018 Aug 17;8(1):12345
pubmed: 30120293
Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Sep;100(9):1183-7
pubmed: 26659714
Eye Vis (Lond). 2016 Mar 11;3:6
pubmed: 26973847
Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 May;135(5):620-7
pubmed: 12719068
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018 Jan;44(1):63-70
pubmed: 29502620
J Refract Surg. 2018 Apr 1;34(4):254-259
pubmed: 29634840
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Jul 13;52(8):5202-14
pubmed: 21508105
Eye Contact Lens. 2019 Sep;45(5):324-330
pubmed: 30724839
J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:925414
pubmed: 25878897
Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:1539-48
pubmed: 23935360
Surv Ophthalmol. 1998 Jan-Feb;42(4):297-319
pubmed: 9493273
Int Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct;36(5):697-705
pubmed: 26854319
Surv Ophthalmol. 1984 Jan-Feb;28(4):293-322
pubmed: 6230745