Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2010
Ability of corneal biomechanical metrics and anterior segment data in the differentiation of keratoconus and healthy corneas.
Оценочное 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.
Fontes Bruno Machado, Ambrósio Junior Renato, Jardim Daniela, Velarde Guillermo Coca, Nosé Walton
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and test accuracy of corneal biomechanical metrics and anterior segment data in differentiating keratoconus from healthy corneas.
METHODS: Comparative case series. Patients with and without keratoconus (gender and age-matched) were submitted for complete eye examinations including corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) as measured by the Ocular Response Analyzer and anterior segment data as gathered through Pentacam assessments. The anterior segment data measurement included average central keratometric readings (K-Ave), corneal astigmatism (CA), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (AC depth) and corneal volume (CV). All parameters were assessed, compared and analyzed. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to identify the best cutoff point by which to maximize the sensitivity and specificity of discriminating keratoconus from normal corneas for each data category.
RESULTS: Seventy seven eyes from forty three patients (24 male, 19 female) with keratoconus and eighty six eyes from forty three (24 male, 19 female) healthy controls were enrolled. ROC curve analysis showed poor overall predictive accuracy for all studied parameters in differentiating keratoconus from normal corneas. The highest sensitivity (79.2%) was obtained for both AC depth and CH (cutoff points 3.22 mm and 9.39 mmHg respectively). The best specificity (89.5%) and test accuracy (80.34%) were obtained for CA (cutoff point of 2.2 D).
CONCLUSION: When considered together, studied parameters showed statistical differences between groups. However, when considered independently they presented low sensitivity, specificity and test accuracy in differentiating keratoconus from healthy corneas.
METHODS: Comparative case series. Patients with and without keratoconus (gender and age-matched) were submitted for complete eye examinations including corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) as measured by the Ocular Response Analyzer and anterior segment data as gathered through Pentacam assessments. The anterior segment data measurement included average central keratometric readings (K-Ave), corneal astigmatism (CA), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (AC depth) and corneal volume (CV). All parameters were assessed, compared and analyzed. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to identify the best cutoff point by which to maximize the sensitivity and specificity of discriminating keratoconus from normal corneas for each data category.
RESULTS: Seventy seven eyes from forty three patients (24 male, 19 female) with keratoconus and eighty six eyes from forty three (24 male, 19 female) healthy controls were enrolled. ROC curve analysis showed poor overall predictive accuracy for all studied parameters in differentiating keratoconus from normal corneas. The highest sensitivity (79.2%) was obtained for both AC depth and CH (cutoff points 3.22 mm and 9.39 mmHg respectively). The best specificity (89.5%) and test accuracy (80.34%) were obtained for CA (cutoff point of 2.2 D).
CONCLUSION: When considered together, studied parameters showed statistical differences between groups. However, when considered independently they presented low sensitivity, specificity and test accuracy in differentiating keratoconus from healthy corneas.