Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2017
Keratoconus Screening With Dynamic Biomechanical In Vivo Scheimpflug Analyses: A Proof-of-Concept Study.
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.
Steinberg Johannes, Amirabadi Nazanin Eslami, Frings Andreas, Mehlan Juliane, Katz Toam, Linke Stephan J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This proof-of-concept study was designed to analyze the ability of in vivo biomechanical corneal analyses with the corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (CorvisST; Oculus Optikgeräte, Wetzlar, Germany) to differentiate between normal eyes and eyes with manifest keratoconus after strictly eliminating the potential confounding factors intraocular pressure (IOP) and central corneal thickness (CCT).
METHODS: In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, after pairwise matching for CCT and IOP, 29 normal eyes and 29 keratoconic eyes (one eye from each patient) were selected as study population. Older CorvisST parameters and the new Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI), including several biomechanical and one tomographic parameter, as well as an adjusted CBI (aCBI) (including only biomechanical parameters), were compared regarding their discriminative ability between both groups.
RESULTS: None of the CorvisST parameters of the former software version demonstrated statistically significant differences between normal and keratoconic eyes. On the other hand, the CBI and aCBI reached accuracies of 0.91 and 0.93, respectively, to discriminate between CCT- and IOP-matched normal and keratoconic eyes (CBI: [AUC/sensitivity/specificity]: 0.961/0.90/0.93; aCBI: [AUC/sensitivity/specificity]: 0.986/0.93/0.93).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the concept of keratoconus screening with the CorvisST is effective in differentiating keratoconic from non-keratoconic eyes. The next steps will be testing the indices in subclinical keratoconus cases and hopefully combining biomechanical analyses with already established topography and tomography indices to further improve current keratoconus screening. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(11):773-778.].
METHODS: In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, after pairwise matching for CCT and IOP, 29 normal eyes and 29 keratoconic eyes (one eye from each patient) were selected as study population. Older CorvisST parameters and the new Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI), including several biomechanical and one tomographic parameter, as well as an adjusted CBI (aCBI) (including only biomechanical parameters), were compared regarding their discriminative ability between both groups.
RESULTS: None of the CorvisST parameters of the former software version demonstrated statistically significant differences between normal and keratoconic eyes. On the other hand, the CBI and aCBI reached accuracies of 0.91 and 0.93, respectively, to discriminate between CCT- and IOP-matched normal and keratoconic eyes (CBI: [AUC/sensitivity/specificity]: 0.961/0.90/0.93; aCBI: [AUC/sensitivity/specificity]: 0.986/0.93/0.93).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the concept of keratoconus screening with the CorvisST is effective in differentiating keratoconic from non-keratoconic eyes. The next steps will be testing the indices in subclinical keratoconus cases and hopefully combining biomechanical analyses with already established topography and tomography indices to further improve current keratoconus screening. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(11):773-778.].