Australian and New Zealand journal of ophthalmology · 1998
Morphological variants in keratoconus: anatomical observation or aetiologically significant?
Клиническое исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Armitage J A, Bruce A S, Phillips A J, Lindsay R G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Two morphological cone variants are identified in keratoconus; nipple and oval. The present study was designed to assess the impact of aetiological factors on cone morphology.
METHODS: As part of a prospective controlled study, keratoconic subjects from a suburban practice (n = 89) underwent videokeratograph examination and completed a questionnaire detailing aetiological factors.
RESULTS: Comparison of 95% confidence limits (CL; bootstrap method) for apical power between the two cone morphology groups showed no statistical significance. Oval cones were located at a greater eccentricity than nipple cones, as their definitions suggest. Associations between aetiological factors examined and the morphology of the cone were not significant (bootstrapped 95% CL).
CONCLUSION: Despite the suggestion of morphological variants in keratoconus, the results of the present study suggest a common cone aetiology.
METHODS: As part of a prospective controlled study, keratoconic subjects from a suburban practice (n = 89) underwent videokeratograph examination and completed a questionnaire detailing aetiological factors.
RESULTS: Comparison of 95% confidence limits (CL; bootstrap method) for apical power between the two cone morphology groups showed no statistical significance. Oval cones were located at a greater eccentricity than nipple cones, as their definitions suggest. Associations between aetiological factors examined and the morphology of the cone were not significant (bootstrapped 95% CL).
CONCLUSION: Despite the suggestion of morphological variants in keratoconus, the results of the present study suggest a common cone aetiology.