Die Ophthalmologie · 2026
[Diagnostic innovations for the early detection and characterization of keratoconus].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Friedrich Maximilian, Son Hyeck-Soo, Auffarth Gerd Uwe, Augustin Victor Aristide
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Keratoconus is a progressive, ectatic corneal disease with considerable potential for visual impairment, especially in advanced stages. Early and precise diagnostics are crucial to avoid progression of the disease.
OBJECTIVE: Modern diagnostic procedures for recognizing keratoconus, including subclinical stages are presented and evaluated.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analysis of current imaging and biomechanical procedures, e.g., Scheimpflug tomography, optical coherence tomography (OCT) and the Corvis ST (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany), including combined indices (e.g., BAD‑D, SCORE) and epithelium-based analyses, taking the current classification systems (ABCD, Amsler-Krumeich) into account.
RESULTS: Tomographic procedures enable detailed analysis of the anterior and posterior cornea as well as the pachymetric distribution. Biomechanical measurements complement the morphological assessment. Combined indices increase the sensitivity in the detection of subclinical cases. Nevertheless, diagnostic uncertainties remain in very early cases.
CONCLUSION: Modern multimodal diagnostics greatly improve the detection and follow-up of keratoconus; however, the diagnosis of subclinical forms remains challenging, highlighting the importance for frequent follow-up controls.
OBJECTIVE: Modern diagnostic procedures for recognizing keratoconus, including subclinical stages are presented and evaluated.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analysis of current imaging and biomechanical procedures, e.g., Scheimpflug tomography, optical coherence tomography (OCT) and the Corvis ST (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany), including combined indices (e.g., BAD‑D, SCORE) and epithelium-based analyses, taking the current classification systems (ABCD, Amsler-Krumeich) into account.
RESULTS: Tomographic procedures enable detailed analysis of the anterior and posterior cornea as well as the pachymetric distribution. Biomechanical measurements complement the morphological assessment. Combined indices increase the sensitivity in the detection of subclinical cases. Nevertheless, diagnostic uncertainties remain in very early cases.
CONCLUSION: Modern multimodal diagnostics greatly improve the detection and follow-up of keratoconus; however, the diagnosis of subclinical forms remains challenging, highlighting the importance for frequent follow-up controls.