Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2012
Corneal deformation signal waveform analysis in keratoconic versus post-femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis eyes after statistical correction for potentially confounding factors.
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.
Zarei-Ghanavati Siamak, Ramirez-Miranda Arturo, Yu Fei, Hamilton D Rex
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare corneal biomechanical waveform parameters between keratoconic and post-femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
SETTING: Jules Stein Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
DESIGN: Comparative case series.
METHODS: The Ocular Response Analyzer was used to obtain the corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), and 39 biomechanical waveform parameters in manifest keratoconic eyes and post-femtosecond LASIK eyes. Univariate tests were used to assess the difference in each parameter between the 2 groups of eyes. After controlling for central corneal thickness (CCT) and age, a logistic regression model was used to select the parameters most useful in distinguishing between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: After statistically controlling for the differences in CCT and age, 7 parameters were found to be the most useful in distinguishing between groups: aplhf (high frequency noise in the region between peaks [P1 and P2]; P<.0001), w2 (width of P2 at base; P=.001), dslop1 (down-slope of P1 of wave; P<.0001), aindex (degree of "non-monotonicity" of rising and falling edges of first peak of wave, P=.0007), uslope1 (upslope of the P1 of wave; P=.001), CH (P=.035), and P1area (area under P1 of wave; P=.006). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model using these parameters was 0.932.
CONCLUSIONS: Differences in multiple biomechanical waveform parameters between the keratoconus and post-LASIK groups suggests that waveform analysis may be useful to differentiate between healthy and diseased biomechanical conditions.
SETTING: Jules Stein Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
DESIGN: Comparative case series.
METHODS: The Ocular Response Analyzer was used to obtain the corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), and 39 biomechanical waveform parameters in manifest keratoconic eyes and post-femtosecond LASIK eyes. Univariate tests were used to assess the difference in each parameter between the 2 groups of eyes. After controlling for central corneal thickness (CCT) and age, a logistic regression model was used to select the parameters most useful in distinguishing between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: After statistically controlling for the differences in CCT and age, 7 parameters were found to be the most useful in distinguishing between groups: aplhf (high frequency noise in the region between peaks [P1 and P2]; P<.0001), w2 (width of P2 at base; P=.001), dslop1 (down-slope of P1 of wave; P<.0001), aindex (degree of "non-monotonicity" of rising and falling edges of first peak of wave, P=.0007), uslope1 (upslope of the P1 of wave; P=.001), CH (P=.035), and P1area (area under P1 of wave; P=.006). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model using these parameters was 0.932.
CONCLUSIONS: Differences in multiple biomechanical waveform parameters between the keratoconus and post-LASIK groups suggests that waveform analysis may be useful to differentiate between healthy and diseased biomechanical conditions.