Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2017
Comparison of Corneal Deformation Parameters in Keratoconic and Normal Eyes Using a Non-contact Tonometer With a Dynamic Ultra-High-Speed Scheimpflug Camera.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Mercer Ryan N, Waring George O, Roberts Cynthia J, Jhanji Vishal, Wang Yumeng, Filho Joao S, Hemings Richard A, Rocha Karolinne M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare biomechanical properties in normal and keratoconic eyes using a dynamic ultra-high-speed Scheimpflug camera equipped with a non-contact tonometer (Corvis ST; Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany).
METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated 89 eyes (47 normal, 42 keratoconic) and a validation arm of 72 eyes (33 normal, 39 keratoconic) using the Corvis ST. A diagnosis of keratoconus was established by clinical findings confirmed by topography and tomography. Dynamic corneal response parameters collected by the Corvis ST (A1 velocity, deformation amplitude [DA], DA Ratio Max 1mm, and Max Inverse Radius) and a stiffness parameter at first applanation (SP-A1) were incorporated into a novel logistic regression equation (DCR index). Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was used to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the DCR index.
RESULTS: DA, DA Ratio Max 1mm, Max Inverse Radius, and SP-A1 were each found to be statistically significantly different between normal and keratoconic eyes (Mann-Whitney test [independent samples]; P = .0077, < .0001, < .0001, and < .0001, respectively; significance level: P < .05). DCR index demonstrated high sensitivity, specificity, and overall correct detection rate (92.9%, 95.7%, and 94.4%, respectively; AUC = 98.5). The sensitivity and overall correct detection rate improved when eyes with Topographical Keratoconus Classification grades (TKC) greater than 0 were reevaluated (from 92.9% to 96.6% and from 94.4% to 96.1%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Combining multiple biomechanical parameters (A1 velocity, DA, DA Ratio Max 1mm, Max Inverse Radius, and SP-A1) into a logistic regression equation allows for high sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing keratoconic from normal eyes. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(9):625-631.].
METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated 89 eyes (47 normal, 42 keratoconic) and a validation arm of 72 eyes (33 normal, 39 keratoconic) using the Corvis ST. A diagnosis of keratoconus was established by clinical findings confirmed by topography and tomography. Dynamic corneal response parameters collected by the Corvis ST (A1 velocity, deformation amplitude [DA], DA Ratio Max 1mm, and Max Inverse Radius) and a stiffness parameter at first applanation (SP-A1) were incorporated into a novel logistic regression equation (DCR index). Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was used to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the DCR index.
RESULTS: DA, DA Ratio Max 1mm, Max Inverse Radius, and SP-A1 were each found to be statistically significantly different between normal and keratoconic eyes (Mann-Whitney test [independent samples]; P = .0077, < .0001, < .0001, and < .0001, respectively; significance level: P < .05). DCR index demonstrated high sensitivity, specificity, and overall correct detection rate (92.9%, 95.7%, and 94.4%, respectively; AUC = 98.5). The sensitivity and overall correct detection rate improved when eyes with Topographical Keratoconus Classification grades (TKC) greater than 0 were reevaluated (from 92.9% to 96.6% and from 94.4% to 96.1%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Combining multiple biomechanical parameters (A1 velocity, DA, DA Ratio Max 1mm, Max Inverse Radius, and SP-A1) into a logistic regression equation allows for high sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing keratoconic from normal eyes. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(9):625-631.].