Comparison of a Scheimpflug imaging with other screening indices in diagnosing keratoconus and keratoconus suspect.
Corneal biomechanics
Corneal tomography
Keratoconus
Keratoconus suspect
Scheimpflug imaging
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Oct 2024
05 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
27
06
2024
accepted:
26
09
2024
medline:
6
10
2024
pubmed:
6
10
2024
entrez:
5
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Keratoconus (KC) is an irreversible blinding eye disease; therefore, early screening of KC suspects (KCS) is crucial for protecting patients' quality of life. Scheimpflug imaging is a commonly used screening device in clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic ability of a Scheimpflug imaging device (Scansys) for KC and KCS and compared it with other Scheimpflug-based devices (Pentacam and Corvis ST). This prospective case-control study included 107 normal eyes, 72 KCS, and 57 KC. Scansys screening index Keratoconus probability (KCP) showed excellent performance in diagnosing KC at a cutoff value of 16.4 (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] = 1.000), with 100% sensitivity and 98.11% specificity. KCP had a better KCS diagnostic ability at a cutoff value of 8.9 (AUROC = 0.813) than Corvis biomechanical index (CBI, AUROC = 0.764), reaching 67.61% sensitivity and 85.85% specificity. Pentacam screening index Belin/Ambrósio enhanced ectasia display deviation (BAD-D) showed the best performance with 92.96% sensitivity and 89.62% specificity at a cutoff value of 1.525 (AUROC = 0.970) in diagnosing KCS. Scansys provides accurate KCP parameters in diagnosing KC; however, the efficiency of diagnosing KCS should be further optimized.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39369097
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-74497-z
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-74497-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
23187Subventions
Organisme : The National Program on Key Research Project of China
ID : 2022YFC2404502
Organisme : The National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82271118
Organisme : The Tianjin Diversified Investment Fund for Applied Basic Research
ID : 21JCZDJC01190
Organisme : The Tianjin Health and Technology Project
ID : TJWJ2022XK036
Organisme : The Tianjin Key Medical Discipline (Specialty) Construction Project
ID : TJYXZDXK-016A
Organisme : The Tianjin Natural Science Foundation
ID : 21JCQNJC0100
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Santodomingo-Rubido, J. et al. Keratoconus: an updated review. Cont. Lens Anterior Eye. 45, 101559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2021.101559 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2021.101559
McMonnies, C. W. Screening for keratoconus suspects among candidates for refractive surgery. Clin. Exp. Optom.97, 492–498 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/cxo.12169
Moshirfar, M. et al. Ectasia after corneal refractive surgery: a systematic review. Ophthalmol. Ther.10, 753–776 (2021).
doi: 10.1007/s40123-021-00383-w
Randleman, J. B., Woodward, M., Lynn, M. J. & Stulting, R. D. Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. Ophthalmology. 115, 37–50 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.073
Kong, A. W. et al. Trends in corneal topography and tomography imaging for keratoconus management. Clin. Ophthalmol.16, 1357–1363 (2022).
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S361352
de Sanctis, U., Missolungi, A., Mutani, B., Richiardi, L. & Grignolo, F. M. Reproducibility and repeatability of central corneal thickness measurement in keratoconus using the rotating Scheimpflug camera and ultrasound pachymetry. Am. J. Ophthalmol.144, 712–718 (2007).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.07.021
Kuo, A. N. et al. Advanced corneal imaging in keratoconus: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 131, 107–121 (2024).
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2023.07.030
de Sanctis, U. et al. Sensitivity and specificity of posterior corneal elevation measured by Pentacam in discriminating keratoconus/subclinical keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 115, 1534–1539 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.02.020
McAlinden, C., Khadka, J. & Pesudovs, K. A comprehensive evaluation of the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of the oculus Pentacam HR. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.52, 7731–7737 (2011).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.10-7093
Zhao, Y. et al. The precision and agreement of corneal thickness and keratometry measurements with SS-OCT versus Scheimpflug imaging. Eye Vis. (Lond). 7, 32 (2020).
doi: 10.1186/s40662-020-00197-0
Ruiseñor Vázquez, P. R. et al. Pentacam Scheimpflug tomography findings in topographically normal patients and subclinical keratoconus cases. Am. J. Ophthalmol.158, 32–40e2 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.03.018
Vinciguerra, R. et al. Detection of keratoconus with a new biomechanical index. J. Refract. Surg.32, 803–810 (2016).
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20160629-01
Ambrósio, R. et al. Integration of Scheimpflug-based corneal tomography and biomechanical assessments for enhancing ectasia detection. J. Refract. Surg.33, 434–443 (2017).
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20170426-02
Kanclerz, P., Przewłócka, K., Toprak, I. & Alio, J. The prevalence of keratoconus in northern Poland: a cross-sectional study of patients from a primary healthcare practice. Cont. Lens Anterior Eye. 46, 101846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2023.101846 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2023.101846
Yu, A. Y. et al. Reliability and agreement of the central and mid-peripheral corneal thickness measured by a new Scheimpflug based imaging. Ann. Transl Med.9, 1136. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-7895 (2021).
doi: 10.21037/atm-20-7895
Xu, W. et al. Repeatability and agreement between a reference Scheimpflug tomographer and a low-cost Scheimpflug system. J. Cataract Refract. Surg.49, 614–619 (2023).
doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001168
Seiler, T. G., Mueller, M. & Mendes Baiao, T. Repeatability and comparison of corneal tomography in mild to severe keratoconus between the anterior segment OCT MS-39 and Pentacam HR. J. Refract. Surg.38, 250–255 (2022).
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20220114-02
Gustafsson, I., Bergström, A., Myers, A. C., Ivarsen, A. & Hjortdal, J. Association between Keratoconus disease severity and repeatability in measurements of parameters for the assessment of progressive disease. PLOS ONE. 15, e0228992. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228992 (2020).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228992
Meyer, J. J., Gokul, A., Vellara, H. R., Prime, Z. & McGhee, C. N. J. Repeatability and agreement of Orbscan II, Pentacam HR, and Galilei tomography systems in corneas with keratoconus. Am. J. Ophthalmol.175, 122–128 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.12.003
Randleman, J. B. et al. Subclinical keratoconus detection and characterization using motion-tracking Brillouin microscopy. Ophthalmology. 131, 310–321 (2024).
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2023.10.011
McAlinden, C., Khadka, J. & Pesudovs, K. Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt.31, 330–338 (2011).
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00851.x
Henriquez, M. A., Hadid, M. & Izquierdo, L. Jr. A systematic review of subclinical keratoconus and forme fruste keratoconus. J. Refract. Surg.36, 270–279 (2020).
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20200212-03
Gomes, J. A. P. et al. Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea. 34, 359–369 (2015).
doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000408
Shetty, R. et al. Keratoconus screening indices and their diagnostic ability to distinguish normal from ectatic corneas. Am. J. Ophthalmol.181, 140–148 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.06.031
Ferdi, A. et al. Predictors of progression in untreated keratoconus: a Save Sight Keratoconus Registry study. Br. J. Ophthalmol.106, 1206–1211 (2022).
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-317547
Shajari, M. et al. Evaluation of keratoconus progression. Br. J. Ophthalmol.103, 551–557 (2019).
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311651
Meyer, J. J., Gokul, A., Vellara, H. R. & McGhee, C. N. J. Progression of Keratoconus in children and adolescents. Br. J. Ophthalmol.107, 176–180 (2023).
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316481
Chan, E. et al. Prevalence of keratoconus based on Scheimpflug imaging: the Raine study. Ophthalmology. 128, 515–521 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.08.020
Neuhann, S. et al. Comparison of variables measured with a Scheimpflug device for evaluation of progression and detection of keratoconus. Sci. Rep. 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76020-6 (2020).
Asroui, L. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of topographically and tomographically normal fellow eyes of patients with keratoconus. J. Refract. Surg.38, 318–325 (2022).
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20220225-01
Huo, Y. et al. Biomechanical properties analysis of forme fruste keratoconus and subclinical keratoconus. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol.261, 1311–1320 (2023).
doi: 10.1007/s00417-022-05916-y
Song, P., Ren, S., Liu, Y., Li, P. & Zeng, Q. Detection of subclinical keratoconus using a novel combined tomographic and biomechanical model based on an automated decision tree. Sci. Rep.12, 5316. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09160-6 (2022).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-09160-6
Padmanabhan, P. & Elsheikh, A. Keratoconus: a biomechanical perspective. Curr. Eye Res.48, 121–129 (2023).
doi: 10.1080/02713683.2022.2088798
Steinberg, J. et al. Screening for keratoconus with new dynamic biomechanical in vivo scheimpflug analyses. Cornea. 34–1012, 1404–1412 (2015).
doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000598
Salman, A., Darwish, T., Ali, A., Ghabra, M. & Rafea, S. Sensitivity and specificity of Sirius indices in diagnosis of keratoconus and suspect keratoconus. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 790–797 (2021).
Shetty, R. et al. Repeatability and agreement of three Scheimpflug-based imaging systems for measuring anterior segment parameters in keratoconus. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.55, 5263–5268 (2014).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.14-15055
Chen, X. et al. Screening of sensitive in vivo characteristics for early keratoconus diagnosis: a multicenter study. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.11, 1158299. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1158299 (2023).
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1158299
de Luis Eguileor, B., Argaluza, E., Pijoán, J., Zubizarreta, J. I. & Carro, S. Etxebarria Ecenarro, J. evaluation of the reliability and repeatability of Scheimpflug system measurement in keratoconus. Cornea. 37, 177–181 (2018).
doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001373
Kreps, E. O. et al. Repeatability of the Pentacam HR in various grades of keratoconus. Am. J. Ophthalmol.219, 154–162 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.06.013