Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2013
Combining ocular response analyzer metrics for corneal biomechanical diagnosis.
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.
Ruiseñor Vázquez Pablo R, Delrivo Marianella, Bonthoux Fernando Fuentes, Pförtner Tomás, Galletti Jeremías Gastón
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate corneal biomechanical properties in non-keratoconic myopic eyes and to identify descriptors for improving the specificity of the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) (Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Depew, NY) testing for subclinical keratoconus detection.
METHODS: Observational case series of 52 non-keratoconic non-myopic eyes and 97 non-keratoconic myopic eyes (spherical equivalent < -5 diopters [D]) in dataset 1 and 87 non-keratoconic eyes and 73 eyes with subclinical keratoconus in dataset 2. Examination included corneal topography, tomography, and biomechanical testing with the ORA. Receiver operating characteristic curves and logistic regression were used to identify optimal combinations of biomechanical indices for keratoconus detection. Main outcome measures were corneal thickness-corrected hysteresis (DifCH) and resistance factor (DifCRF), the difference between these two (CH-CRF), and the diagnostic performance of their combinations.
RESULTS: Compared to non-keratoconic non-myopic eyes, non-keratoconic myopic eyes with flat corneas (average corneal power < 44.0 D) had reduced DifCH (mean ± standard deviation, 0.11 ± 1.27 vs -0.79 ± 1.50, P < .01) and DifCRF (0.24 ± 1.16 vs -0.70 ± 1.59, P < .01) values, whereas non-keratoconic myopic eyes with steep corneas showed no difference. Keratoconic eyes exhibited lower DifCH and DifCRF values than non-keratoconic myopic eyes. Combinations of DifCH, DifCRF, and CH-CRF had increased specificity (> 80%) for subclinical keratoconus compared to the DifCRF index alone (71%).
CONCLUSIONS: In biomechanical keratoconus screening, some non-keratoconic myopic eyes show altered ocular biomechanical properties and are identified as false-positive cases. The low specificity of DifCRF when dealing with these non-keratoconic eyes could be improved by considering additional biomechanical descriptors such as DifCH and CH-CRF, which seem to be indicative of the aforementioned biomechanical profile.
METHODS: Observational case series of 52 non-keratoconic non-myopic eyes and 97 non-keratoconic myopic eyes (spherical equivalent < -5 diopters [D]) in dataset 1 and 87 non-keratoconic eyes and 73 eyes with subclinical keratoconus in dataset 2. Examination included corneal topography, tomography, and biomechanical testing with the ORA. Receiver operating characteristic curves and logistic regression were used to identify optimal combinations of biomechanical indices for keratoconus detection. Main outcome measures were corneal thickness-corrected hysteresis (DifCH) and resistance factor (DifCRF), the difference between these two (CH-CRF), and the diagnostic performance of their combinations.
RESULTS: Compared to non-keratoconic non-myopic eyes, non-keratoconic myopic eyes with flat corneas (average corneal power < 44.0 D) had reduced DifCH (mean ± standard deviation, 0.11 ± 1.27 vs -0.79 ± 1.50, P < .01) and DifCRF (0.24 ± 1.16 vs -0.70 ± 1.59, P < .01) values, whereas non-keratoconic myopic eyes with steep corneas showed no difference. Keratoconic eyes exhibited lower DifCH and DifCRF values than non-keratoconic myopic eyes. Combinations of DifCH, DifCRF, and CH-CRF had increased specificity (> 80%) for subclinical keratoconus compared to the DifCRF index alone (71%).
CONCLUSIONS: In biomechanical keratoconus screening, some non-keratoconic myopic eyes show altered ocular biomechanical properties and are identified as false-positive cases. The low specificity of DifCRF when dealing with these non-keratoconic eyes could be improved by considering additional biomechanical descriptors such as DifCH and CH-CRF, which seem to be indicative of the aforementioned biomechanical profile.