Can retinoscopy keep up in keratoconus diagnosis?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of retinoscopy in comparison with Amsler-grading, Pentacam and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) in classifying keratoconus stages.

METHODS

Clinical examination, retinoscopy, Pentacam and ORA were performed in 126 patients. Data of Amsler, retinoscopy, topographic keratoconus classification (TKC) of Pentacam and keratoconus match probability (KMP) of ORA were analyzed. Each of these four classification techniques quotes keratoconus into stage 0 (normal) to 4 (severe). Descriptive analysis and cross tables were used to compare the different devices.

RESULTS

For retinoscopy the distribution in the five keratoconus grades normal/suspect/mild/moderate/severe (in numbers) was 34/33/34/17/8. For Amsler it was 37/36/35/12/4, for TKC 38/17/34/31/4, for KMP 32/34/32/15/9. The cross tables show large classification differences of all devices. Overall, classification of retinoscopy and Amsler/TKC/KMP is congruent in 51.6%/36.3%/39.8% of the cases. Of all eyes, Amsler was congruent with TKC/KMP in 54.0%/48.4%, and TKC and KMP were congruent in 53.3%. In a binary decision (normal vs. any stage of mild/moderate/severe) matching between retinoscopy and Amsler/TKC/KMP was 98.6%/88.8%/82.4%. Sensitivity/specificity for retinoscopy and Amsler, TKC, KMP was 98.8%/94.0%, 84.4%/100% and 80.0%/79.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The congruence of keratoconus classification was very poor of all the techniques tested in our study. This applies to objective measures such as TKC, KMP as well as clinical classification techniques such as Amsler and retinoscopy. Compared to TKC and KMP, retinoscopy underestimates keratoconus stages. In contrast, the performance of binary decisions (normal vs. keratoconus) shows a high sensitivity and specificity. Retinoscopy, however, showed a clear clinical use in confirming the diagnosis of keratoconus.