Corneal biomechanics in normal and subclinical keratoconus eyes.
Corneal biomechanics
Corvis ST
Scheimpflug technology
Subclinical keratoconus
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Nov 2023
15 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
09
01
2023
accepted:
09
11
2023
medline:
17
11
2023
pubmed:
16
11
2023
entrez:
16
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The diagnosis of keratoconus, as the most prevalent corneal ectatic disorder, at the subclinical stage gained great attention due to the increased acceptance of refractive surgeries. This study aimed to assess the pattern of the corneal biomechanical properties derived from Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (Corvis ST) and evaluate the diagnostic value of these parameters in distinguishing subclinical keratoconus (SKC) from normal eyes. This prospective study was conducted on 73 SKC and 69 normal eyes. Subclinical keratoconus eyes were defined as corneas with no clinical evidence of keratoconus and suspicious topographic and tomographic features. Following a complete ophthalmic examination, topographic and tomographic corneal assessment via Pentacam HR, and corneal biomechanical evaluation utilizing Corvis ST were done. Subclinical keratoconus eyes presented significantly higher Deformation Amplitude (DA) ratio, Tomographic Biomechanical Index (TBI), and Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI) rates than the control group. Conversely, Ambrósio Relational Thickness to the Horizontal profile (ARTh), and Stiffness Parameter at the first Applanation (SPA1) showed significantly lower rates in SKC eyes. In diagnosing SKC from normal eyes, TBI (AUC: 0.858, Cut-off value: > 0.33, Youden index: 0.55), ARTh (AUC: 0.813, Cut-off value: ≤ 488.1, Youden index: 0.58), and CBI (AUC: 0.804, Cut-off value: > 0.47, Youden index: 0.49) appeared as good indicators. TBI, CBI, and ARTh parameters could be valuable in distinguishing SKC eyes from normal ones.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The diagnosis of keratoconus, as the most prevalent corneal ectatic disorder, at the subclinical stage gained great attention due to the increased acceptance of refractive surgeries. This study aimed to assess the pattern of the corneal biomechanical properties derived from Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (Corvis ST) and evaluate the diagnostic value of these parameters in distinguishing subclinical keratoconus (SKC) from normal eyes.
METHODS
METHODS
This prospective study was conducted on 73 SKC and 69 normal eyes. Subclinical keratoconus eyes were defined as corneas with no clinical evidence of keratoconus and suspicious topographic and tomographic features. Following a complete ophthalmic examination, topographic and tomographic corneal assessment via Pentacam HR, and corneal biomechanical evaluation utilizing Corvis ST were done.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Subclinical keratoconus eyes presented significantly higher Deformation Amplitude (DA) ratio, Tomographic Biomechanical Index (TBI), and Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI) rates than the control group. Conversely, Ambrósio Relational Thickness to the Horizontal profile (ARTh), and Stiffness Parameter at the first Applanation (SPA1) showed significantly lower rates in SKC eyes. In diagnosing SKC from normal eyes, TBI (AUC: 0.858, Cut-off value: > 0.33, Youden index: 0.55), ARTh (AUC: 0.813, Cut-off value: ≤ 488.1, Youden index: 0.58), and CBI (AUC: 0.804, Cut-off value: > 0.47, Youden index: 0.49) appeared as good indicators.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
TBI, CBI, and ARTh parameters could be valuable in distinguishing SKC eyes from normal ones.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37968616
doi: 10.1186/s12886-023-03215-6
pii: 10.1186/s12886-023-03215-6
pmc: PMC10647094
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
459Subventions
Organisme : Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
ID : 399043
Organisme : Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
ID : 399043
Organisme : Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
ID : 399043
Organisme : Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
ID : 399043
Organisme : Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
ID : 399043
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Semin Ophthalmol. 2021 Nov 17;36(8):671-678
pubmed: 33734947
Curr Eye Res. 2023 Feb;48(2):130-136
pubmed: 35184637
Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2010 Aug;33(4):157-66; quiz 205
pubmed: 20537579
Cornea. 2018 Aug;37(8):1025-1034
pubmed: 29847493
J Refract Surg. 2016 Dec 1;32(12):803-810
pubmed: 27930790
J Refract Surg. 2019 Apr 1;35(4):247-252
pubmed: 30984982
J Refract Surg. 2020 Apr 1;36(4):270-279
pubmed: 32267959
J Biomech. 2016 Feb 8;49(3):353-63
pubmed: 26777602
J Refract Surg. 2018 Sep 1;34(9):616-621
pubmed: 30199566
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021 Mar 1;47(3):366-372
pubmed: 32947382
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 2;11(1):4962
pubmed: 33654120
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Am J Ophthalmol. 2020 Nov;219:154-162
pubmed: 32569740
BMC Ophthalmol. 2021 Sep 20;21(1):339
pubmed: 34544392
Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Sep;181:140-148
pubmed: 28687218
Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2022 Jun;45(3):101559
pubmed: 34991971
J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2013 Jul;8(3):213-9
pubmed: 24349664
Ophthalmol Ther. 2021 Dec;10(4):753-776
pubmed: 34417707
Eye Vis (Lond). 2016 Jul 04;3:18
pubmed: 27382596
J Refract Surg. 2022 May;38(5):318-325
pubmed: 35536713
Int J Ophthalmol. 2021 Feb 18;14(2):228-239
pubmed: 33614451
Cornea. 2020 Feb;39(2):137-139
pubmed: 31714403
Optom Vis Sci. 2009 Mar;86(3):170-80
pubmed: 19182699
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019 Mar;45(3):328-336
pubmed: 30527442
J Refract Surg. 2017 Jul 1;33(7):434-443
pubmed: 28681902
J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 28;10(9):
pubmed: 33924937
J Clin Med. 2021 Jun 22;10(13):
pubmed: 34206580
Sci Rep. 2019 Oct 25;9(1):15379
pubmed: 31653884
J Curr Ophthalmol. 2017 May 22;29(3):175-181
pubmed: 28913507
J Refract Surg. 2019 Jun 1;35(6):383-390
pubmed: 31185104
J Refract Surg. 2017 Jun 1;33(6):399-407
pubmed: 28586501
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014 Jun;40(6):991-8
pubmed: 24774009