In-vivo corneal biomechanical analysis of unilateral keratoconus
Author:
  • Article
  • | |
  • Metrics
  • |
  • Reference [24]
  • |
  • Related
  • |
  • Cited by
  • | |
  • Comments
    Abstract:

    AIM: To evaluate and compare corneal biomechanical findings measured by ocular response analyzer, topographic and pachymetric findings in patients with unilateral keratoconus patients and healthy controls. METHODS: This is an observational, case-control study. Patients with keratoconus in one eye and forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eye were compared with sex and age matched with controls healthy subjects. All subjects were evaluated with rotating scheimpflug imaging system. The receiver-operating-characteristic curves were analyzed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the parameters. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with keratoconus in one eye and forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eye were compared with 40 eyes of 40 normal subjects. Corneal hysteresis (CH) was 8.0±1.7 mm Hg in keratoconus group, 8.3±1.6 mm Hg in forme fruste keratoconus group, and 9.8±1.6 mm Hg in control groups (P=0.54 between keratoconus and forme fruste keratoconus groups, P<0.01 between control group and other groups). Corneal resistance factor (CRF) was 7.1±2.2 mm Hg in keratoconus group, 7.8±1.2 mm Hg in forme fruste keratoconus group and 9.9±1.5 mm Hg in control group (P<0.001 between control group and other groups). Using receiver-operating-characteristic analysis, the area under curve values of the parameters to distinguish forme fruste keratoconus from control subjects were: CH (0.768), CRF (0.866). Best cut-off points were 9.3 mm Hg and 8.8 mm Hg for CH and CRF respectively. CONCLUSION: Ocular response analyzer parameters (CH and CRF) are found to be significantly lower in forme fruste keratoconus patients compared to normal control subjects.

    Reference
    1 Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol 1998;42(4):297-319
    2 McMahon TT, Szczotka-Flynn L, Barr JT, Anderson RJ, Slaughter ME, Lass JH, Iyengar SK; CLEK Study Group. A new method for grading the severity of keratoconus: the Keratoconus Severity Score (KSS). Cornea 2006;25(7):794-800
    3 Randleman JB, Woodward M, Lynn MJ, Stulting RD. Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. Ophthalmology 2008;115(1):37-50
    4 Rabinowitz YS, Nesbum AB, McDonnell PJ. Videokeratography of the fellow eye in unilateral keratoconus. Ophthalmology 1993;100(2):181-186
    5 Holland DR, Maeda N, Hannush SB, Riveroll LH, Green MT, Klyce SD, Wilson SE. Unilateral keratoconus; incidence and quantitative topographic analysis. Ophthalmology 1997;104(9):1409-1413
    6 Li X, Rabinowitz YS, Rasheed K, Yang H. Longitudinal study of the normal eyes in unilateral keratoconus patients. Ophthalmology 2004;111(3):440-446
    7 Saad A, Gatinel D. Topographic and tomographic properties of forme fruste keratoconus corneas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51(11):5546-5555
    8 Klyce SD. Chasing the suspect: keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93(7):845-847
    9 Fontes BM, Ambrosio R Jr, Salomao M, Velarde GC, Nose W. Biomechanical and tomographic analysis of unilateral keratoconus. J Refract Surg 2010;26(9):677-681
    10 Ortiz D, Pinero D, Shabayek MH, Arnalich-Montiel F, Alio JL. Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33(8):1371e5
    11 Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Bhojwani R, Mantry S, Cunliffe I. Assessment of the biomechanical properties of the cornea with the ocular response analyzer in normal and keratoconic eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48(7):3026-3031
    12 Schweitzer C, Roberts CJ, Mahmoud AM, Colin J, Maurice-Tison S, Kerautret J. Screening of forme fruste keratoconus with the ocular response analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51(5):2403-2410
    13 Alio JL, Muftuoglu O, Ortiz D, Perez-Santonja JJ, Artola A, Ayala MJ, Garcia MJ, de Luna GC. Ten-year follow-up of laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia of up to -10 diopters. Am J Ophthalmol 2008;145(1):46-54
    14 Alio JL, Muftuoglu O, Ortiz D, Perez-Santonja JJ, Artola A, Ayala MJ, Garcia MJ, de Luna GC. Ten-year follow-up of laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia. Am J Ophthalmol 2008;145(1):55-64
    15 Rad AS, Jabbarvand M, Saifi N. Progressive keratectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Refract Surg 2004;20(5 suppl):S718-S722
    16 Pallikaris IG, Kymionis GD, Astyrakakis NI. Corneal ectasia induced by laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001;27(11):1796-1802
    17 Ambrósio R Jr, Alonso RS, Luz A, Coca Velarde LG. Corneal thickness spatial profile and corneal-volume distribution: tomographic indices to detect keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32(11):1851-1859
    18 Muftuoglu O, Ayar O, Ozulken K, Ozyol E, Akinci A. Posterior corneal elevation and back difference corneal elevation in diagnosing forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eyes of unilateral keratoconus patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39(9):1348-1357
    19 Klein SR, Epstein RJ, Randleman JB, Stulting RD. Corneal ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis in patients without apparent preoperative risk factors. Cornea 2006;25(4):388-403
    20 Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31(1):156-162
    21 Laiquzzaman M, Bhojwani B, Cunliffe I, Shah S. Diurnal variation of ocular hysteresis in normal subjects: relevance in clinical context. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2006;34(2):114-118
    22 Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Cunliffe I, Mantry S. The use of the Reichert ocular response analyser to establish the relationship between ocular hysteresis, corneal resistance factor and central corneal thickness in normal eyes. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2006;29(5):257-262
    23 Krachmer JH, Feder RS, Belin MW. Keratoconus and related noninflammatory corneal thinning disorders. Surv Ophthalmol 1984;28(4):293-322
    24 Fontes BM, Ambrósio R Jr, Jardim D, Velarde GC, Nose W. Corneal biomechanical metrics and anterior segment parameters in mild keratoconus. Ophthalmology 2010;117(4):673-679
    Related
    Cited by
Get Citation

Orhan Ayar, Mehmet Cuneyt Ozmen, Orkun Muftuoglu,/et al.In-vivo corneal biomechanical analysis of unilateral keratoconus. Int J Ophthalmol, 2015,8(6):1141-1145

Copy
Share
Article Metrics
  • Abstract:
  • PDF:
  • HTML:
  • Cited by:
Publication History
  • Received:April 25,2014
  • Revised:March 17,2015
  • Online: November 12,2015