The Role of Ocular Response Analyzer in Differentiation of Forme Fruste Keratoconus From Corneal Astigmatism

被引:9
作者
Kirgiz, Ahmet [1 ]
Erdur, Sevil Karaman [2 ]
Atalay, Kursat [1 ]
Gurez, Ceren [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hlth Sci, Bagcilar Training & Res Hosp, Dept Ophthalmol, Istanbul, Turkey
[2] Istanbul Medipol Univ, Dept Ophthalmol, Istanbul, Turkey
来源
EYE & CONTACT LENS-SCIENCE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE | 2019年 / 45卷 / 02期
关键词
Corneal biomechanical properties; Corneal hysteresis; Forme fruste keratoconus; Anterior segment parameters; Astigmatism; Ocular response analyzer; BIOMECHANICAL PROPERTIES; DISCRIMINANT VALUE; THIN CORNEAS; DERIVATIVES; PARAMETERS;
D O I
10.1097/ICL.0000000000000541
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of corneal biomechanical factors in differentiating patients with forme fruste keratoconus (FFKC) from astigmatic and normal cases. Methods: A total of 50 eyes with FFKC, 50 with astigmatism and 50 normal eyes, were included in this study. All patients had a detailed ophthalmologic examination including slit-lamp evaluation, Goldmann tonometry, indirect fundoscopy, topography by Scheimpflug imaging biomicroscopic anterior and posterior segment examination, and corneal biomechanical and intraocular pressure evaluation with ocular response analyzer (ORA). Results: All topographic findings were statistically significant among the three groups (P>0.05). Although there was no statistically significant difference in the corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc) among the three groups, the Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (IOPg), corneal hysteresis (CH), and corneal resistance factor (CRF) were statistically significantly lower in the FFKC group, compared with the other groups (P<0.001). There were no statistically significant difference in the IOPg, CH, and CRF between astigmatism and control groups (P=0.99, 0.79, and 0.86, respectively). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was greater than 0.85 for IOPg (0.80), CH (0.85), and CRF (0.90) for discriminating between FFKC and controls; whereas the AUROC was greater than 0.85 for IOPg (0.80), CH (0.79), and CRF (0.85) for discriminating between FFKC and astigmatism groups. Conclusion: Based on our study results, in differentiation of patients with FFKC from normal control cases or astigmatic patients, corneal biomechanical parameters play a role particularly in patients with suspicious results. We suggest using ORA in combination with corneal topography for better and more accurate diagnosis of FFKC.
引用
收藏
页码:83 / 87
页数:5
相关论文
共 26 条
  • [1] In-vivo corneal biomechanical analysis of unilateral keratoconus
    Ayar, Orhan
    Ozmen, Mehmet Cuneyt
    Muftuoglu, Orkun
    Akdemir, Mehmet Orcun
    Koc, Mustafa
    Ozulken, Kemal
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2015, 8 (06) : 1141 - 1145
  • [2] Consideration of corneal biomechanics in the diagnosis and management of keratoconus: is it important?
    Bao, FangJun
    Geraghty, Brendan
    Wang, QinMei
    Elsheikh, Ahmed
    [J]. EYE AND VISION, 2016, 3
  • [3] CLASSIFICATION OF NORMAL CORNEAL TOPOGRAPHY BASED ON COMPUTER-ASSISTED VIDEOKERATOGRAPHY
    BOGAN, SJ
    WARING, GO
    IBRAHIM, O
    DREWS, C
    CURTIS, L
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1990, 108 (07) : 945 - 949
  • [4] Corneal Biomechanical Metrics and Anterior Segment Parameters in Mild Keratoconus
    Fontes, Bruno M.
    Ambrosio, Renato, Jr.
    Jardim, Daniela
    Velarde, Guillermo C.
    Nose, Walton
    [J]. OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2010, 117 (04) : 673 - 679
  • [5] Corneal biomechanical evaluation in healthy thin corneas compared with matched keratoconus cases
    Fontes, Bruno Machado
    Ambrosio, Renato, Jr.
    Velarde, Guillermo Coca
    Nose, Walton
    [J]. ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE OFTALMOLOGIA, 2011, 74 (01) : 13 - 16
  • [6] Precision of Ocular Response Analyzer
    Goebels, Susanne Christiane
    Seitz, Berthold
    Langenbucher, Achim
    [J]. CURRENT EYE RESEARCH, 2012, 37 (08) : 689 - 693
  • [7] Effect of corneal astigmatism on intraocular pressure measurement using ocular response analyzer and Goldmann applanation tonometer
    Hagishima, Mana
    Kamiya, Kazutaka
    Fujimura, Fusako
    Morita, Tetsuya
    Shoji, Nobuyuki
    Shimizu, Kimiya
    [J]. GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2010, 248 (02) : 257 - 262
  • [8] Discriminant Value of Custom Ocular Response Analyzer Waveform Derivatives in Keratoconus
    Hallahan, Katie M.
    Roy, Abhijit Sinha
    Ambrosio, Renato, Jr.
    Salomao, Marcella
    Dupps, William J., Jr.
    [J]. OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2014, 121 (02) : 459 - 468
  • [9] Corneal Biomechanical Properties in Normal, Forme Fruste Keratoconus, and Manifest Keratoconus After Statistical Correction for Potentially Confounding Factors
    Johnson, R. Duncan
    Nguyen, Myhanh T.
    Lee, Nancy
    Hamilton, D. Rex
    [J]. CORNEA, 2011, 30 (05) : 516 - 523
  • [10] Chasing the suspect: keratoconus
    Klyce, Stephen D.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2009, 93 (07) : 845 - 847