European journal of ophthalmology · 2018
Comparative evaluation of Scheimpflug tomography parameters between thin non-keratoconic, subclinical keratoconic, and mild keratoconic corneas.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Huseynli Samira, Salgado-Borges José, Alio Jorge L
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the topographic and topometric parameters, thickness profile data, and data from enhanced elevation maps of thin non-keratoconic, subclinical keratoconic, and mild keratoconic corneas with the Pentacam Scheimpflug corneal tomography and to study the usefulness of different parameters to differentiate keratoconus from topographically normal thin corneas.
METHODS: The study included 30 eyes with subclinical keratoconus, 30 eyes with mild-stage keratoconus, and 54 healthy eyes with minimal pachymetry ≤500 µm, with a mean age of 21.19 ± 2.97, 21.75 ± 1.93, and 21.5 ± 2.95 years, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves was used to analyze the diagnostic significance of the Pentacam parameters.
RESULTS: The anterior and posterior corneal elevations, pachymetric progression, the percentage of thickness increase measurements, overall D value, and topometric indices were statistically significantly higher in subclinical and mild keratoconic corneas than in normal eyes with thin cornea (p < 0.05). All these parameters had sufficient strength (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves >0.90) to differentiate clinical keratoconus. Posterior elevation showed the excellent area under the receiver operating characteristic curves with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for this purpose. However, among all parameters studied, the anterior elevation (0.935) showed the excellent area under the receiver operating characteristic curves to differentiate subclinical keratoconus, followed by posterior elevation (0.897), index of height decentration (0.887), and D value (0.882).
CONCLUSION: The parameters derived from the Scheimpflug device, such as corneal elevations and overall D value, can effectively differentiate subclinical and clinical keratoconus from non-keratoconic thin cornea eyes. However, the specificity levels of these parameters were relatively limited in the diagnosis of subclinical keratoconus.
METHODS: The study included 30 eyes with subclinical keratoconus, 30 eyes with mild-stage keratoconus, and 54 healthy eyes with minimal pachymetry ≤500 µm, with a mean age of 21.19 ± 2.97, 21.75 ± 1.93, and 21.5 ± 2.95 years, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves was used to analyze the diagnostic significance of the Pentacam parameters.
RESULTS: The anterior and posterior corneal elevations, pachymetric progression, the percentage of thickness increase measurements, overall D value, and topometric indices were statistically significantly higher in subclinical and mild keratoconic corneas than in normal eyes with thin cornea (p < 0.05). All these parameters had sufficient strength (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves >0.90) to differentiate clinical keratoconus. Posterior elevation showed the excellent area under the receiver operating characteristic curves with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for this purpose. However, among all parameters studied, the anterior elevation (0.935) showed the excellent area under the receiver operating characteristic curves to differentiate subclinical keratoconus, followed by posterior elevation (0.897), index of height decentration (0.887), and D value (0.882).
CONCLUSION: The parameters derived from the Scheimpflug device, such as corneal elevations and overall D value, can effectively differentiate subclinical and clinical keratoconus from non-keratoconic thin cornea eyes. However, the specificity levels of these parameters were relatively limited in the diagnosis of subclinical keratoconus.