Eye & contact lens · 2021
Determining the Most Suitable Tomography-Based Parameters to Describe Progression in Keratoconus. The Retrospective Digital Computer Analysis of Keratoconus Evolution Project.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Jiménez-García Marta, Kreps Elke O, Ní Dhubhghaill Sorcha, Koppen Carina, Rozema Jos J, REDCAKE Study Group
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To identify the most suitable parameters to describe keratoconus progression.
METHODS: Longitudinal retrospective cohort study. Monotonicity and consistency of over 250 parameters extracted from the Pentacam tomographies (Oculus, Germany) of 743 patients was analyzed. Repeatability was calculated for 69 patients (published elsewhere). The parameters were scored based on their performance for each desired feature and a global ranking was created.
RESULTS: Overall, parameters that average a higher number of corneal points performed better than single-point parameters. Zonal keratometries on areas surrounding the maximum curvature point and the steepest front keratometry performed best, followed by front best-fit sphere and mean keratometry of both surfaces. Platform-dependent indices (e.g., Belin-Ambrósio Deviation- or index height decentration-) obtained good scores, but platform-independent LOGIK performed slightly better. Finally, although minimum radius in both surfaces worked competently, minimum pachymetry (PachyMin) performed considerably poorer.
CONCLUSIONS: We presented a list of parameters whose behavior was repeatable, monotonic and consistent, features desirable to describe change. The parameters normally used to follow keratoconus progression may not be the most adequate, as evidenced by the poor performance of PachyMin. Although calculated for a specific Scheimpflug device, most of the best-performing parameters are platform-independent variables, and results may be generalized, pending validation.
METHODS: Longitudinal retrospective cohort study. Monotonicity and consistency of over 250 parameters extracted from the Pentacam tomographies (Oculus, Germany) of 743 patients was analyzed. Repeatability was calculated for 69 patients (published elsewhere). The parameters were scored based on their performance for each desired feature and a global ranking was created.
RESULTS: Overall, parameters that average a higher number of corneal points performed better than single-point parameters. Zonal keratometries on areas surrounding the maximum curvature point and the steepest front keratometry performed best, followed by front best-fit sphere and mean keratometry of both surfaces. Platform-dependent indices (e.g., Belin-Ambrósio Deviation- or index height decentration-) obtained good scores, but platform-independent LOGIK performed slightly better. Finally, although minimum radius in both surfaces worked competently, minimum pachymetry (PachyMin) performed considerably poorer.
CONCLUSIONS: We presented a list of parameters whose behavior was repeatable, monotonic and consistent, features desirable to describe change. The parameters normally used to follow keratoconus progression may not be the most adequate, as evidenced by the poor performance of PachyMin. Although calculated for a specific Scheimpflug device, most of the best-performing parameters are platform-independent variables, and results may be generalized, pending validation.