Comparative evaluation of Scheimpflug tomography parameters between thin non-keratoconic,subclinical keratoconic,and mild keratoconic corneas

Abstract

Purpose:

To evaluate and compare the topographic and topometric parameters, thickness profile data, and data from enhanced elevation maps of thin non-keratoconic, subclinical keratoconic, and mild keratoconic corneas with the Pentacam Scheimpflug corneal tomography and to study the usefulness of different parameters to differentiate keratoconus from topographically normal thin corneas.

Methods:

The study included 30 eyes with subclinical keratoconus, 30 eyes with mild-stage keratoconus, and 54 healthy eyes with minimal pachymetry ≤500 µm, with a mean age of 21.19 ± 2.97, 21.75 ± 1.93, and 21.5 ± 2.95 years, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves was used to analyze the diagnostic significance of the Pentacam parameters.

Results:

The anterior and posterior corneal elevations, pachymetric progression, the percentage of thickness increase measurements, overall D value, and topometric indices were statistically significantly higher in subclinical and mild keratoconic corneas than in normal eyes with thin cornea (p < 0.05). All these parameters had sufficient strength (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves >0.90) to differentiate clinical keratoconus. Posterior elevation showed the excellent area under the receiver operating characteristic curves with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for this purpose. However, among all parameters studied, the anterior elevation (0.935) showed the excellent area under the receiver operating characteristic curves to differentiate subclinical keratoconus, followed by posterior elevation (0.897), index of height decentration (0.887), and D value (0.882).

Conclusion:

The parameters derived from the Scheimpflug device, such as corneal elevations and overall D value, can effectively differentiate subclinical and clinical keratoconus from non-keratoconic thin cornea eyes. However, the specificity levels of these parameters were relatively limited in the diagnosis of subclinical keratoconus.

Keywords

Keratoconus subclinical keratoconus corneal pachymetry post LASIK ectasia corneal topography Scheimpflug tomography Pentacam topography

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Rabinowitz

YS.

Keratoconus. Survophthalmol 1998; 42: 297–319.

Piñero

Nieto

Lopez-Miguel

Characterization of corneal structure in keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38(12): 2167–2183.

Kanellopoulos

Asimellis

Revisiting keratoconus diagnosis and progression classification based on evaluation of corneal asymmetry indices, derived from Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconic and suspect cases. Clin Ophthalmol 2013; 7: 1539–1548.

Montalbán

Alio

Javaloy

et al . Comparative analysis of the relationship between anterior and posterior corneal shape analyzed by Scheimpflug photography in normal and keratoconus eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2013; 251(6): 1547–1555.

Ambrosio

Caiado

ALC

Guerra

et al . Novel pachymetric parameters based on corneal tomography for diagnosing keratoconus. J Refract Surg 2011; 27(10): 753–758.

Ambrósio

Jr Alonso

Luz

et al . Corneal-thickness spatial profile and corneal-volume distribution: tomographic indices to detect keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32(11): 1851–1859.

Piñero

Alio

Alesón

et al . Corneal volume, pachymetry, and correlation of anterior and posterior corneal shape in subclinical and different stages of clinical keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010; 36(5): 814–825.

Miháltz

Kovács

Takács

et al . Evaluation of keratometric, pachymetric, and elevation parameters of keratoconus corneas with Pentacam. Cornea 2009; 28: 976–980.

Orucoglu

Toker

Comparative analysis of anterior segment parameters in normal and keratoconus eyes generated by Scheimpflug tomography. J Ophthalmol 2015; 2015: 925414.

10.

Fam

Lim

KL.

Corneal elevation indices in normal and keratoconic eyes. J Cataract Refract 2006; 32(8): 1281–1287.

11.

Uçakhan

Cetinkor

Ozkan

et al . Evaluation of Scheimpflug imaging parameters in subclinical keratoconus, keratoconus, and normal eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011; 37: 1116–1124.

12.

Muftuoglu

Ayar

Hurmeric

et al . Comparison of multimetric D index with keratometric, pachymetric, and posterior elevation parameters in diagnosing subclinical keratoconus in fellow eyes of asymmetric keratoconus patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015; 41: 557–565.

13.

Chen

Xie

LX.

Correlation of basic indicators with stages of keratoconus assessed by Pentacam tomography. Int J Ophthalmol 2015; 8: 1136–1140.

14.

Ruisenor

VPR

Galletti

Minguez

et al . Pentacam Scheimpflug tomography findings in topographically normal patients and subclinical keratoconus cases. Am J Ophthalmol 2014; 158(1): 32–40.

15.

Saad

Gatinel

Topographic and tomographic properties of forme fruste keratoconus corneas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51: 554–565.

16.

Schlegel

Hoang-Xuan

Gatinel

Comparison of and correlation between anterior and posterior corneal elevation maps in normal eyes and keratoconus-suspect eyes. J Cataract Refrac Surg 2008; 34: 789–795.

17.

Hashemi

Beiranvand

Yekta

et al . Pentacam top indices for diagnosing subclinical and definite keratoconus. J Curr Ophthalmol 2016; 28: 21–26.

18.

Wave Light. Wave Light Allegro Oculyzer 1074 User Manual. Erlangen: Wave Light.

19.

DeLong

Clarke-Pearson

DL.

Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 837–845.

20.

Kamiya

Ishii

Shimizu

et al . Evaluation of corneal elevation, pachymetry and keratometry in keratoconic eyes with respect to the stage of Amsler-Krumeich classification. Br J Ophthalmol 2014; 98(4): 459–463.

21.

Villavicencio

Gilani

Henriquez

et al . Independent population validation of the Belin/Ambrósio enhanced ectasia display: implications for keratoconus studies and screening. Int J Keratocoectatic Corneal Dis 2014; 3: 1–8.

22.

Khoramnia

Rabsilber

Auffarth

GU.

Central and peripheral pachymetry measurements according to age using the Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33: 830–836.

23.

Mohammadpour

Mohammad

Karimi

Central corneal thickness measurement using ultrasonic pachymetry, rotating Scheimpflug camera, and scanning-slit topography exclusively in thin non-keratoconic corneas. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2016; 11(3): 245–251.

24.

Hashemi

Yazdani

Mehravaran

et al . Corneal thickness in a population-based, cross-sectional study: the Tehran eye study. Cornea 2009; 28: 395–400.

25.

Ashwin

Shah

Pushpoth

et al . The relationship of central corneal thickness (CCT) to thinnest central cornea (TCC) in healthy adults. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2009; 32: 64–67.

26.

Keech

Simpson

Jones

Repeatability of pachymetry and thinnest point localization using a Fourier-domain optical coherence tomographer. Optom Vis Sci 2010; 87: 736–774.

27.

Reufer

Sander

Klettner

et al . Characterization of the thinnest point of the cornea compared with the central corneal thickness in normal subjects. Cornea 2009; 28: 177–180.

28.

Ambrosio

Jr Lopes

Faria-Correia

et al . Integration of Scheimpflug-based corneal tomography and biomechanical assessments for enhancing ectasia detection. J Refract Surg 2017; 33(7): 434–443.

29.

Tomita

Watabe

Mita

et al . Long-term observation and evaluation of femtosecond laser-assisted thin-flap laser in situ keratomileusis in eyes with thin corneas but normal topography. J Cataract Refract 2014; 40(2): 239–250.

30.

Galletti

Pfortner

Bonthoux

Improved keratoconus detection by ocular response analyzer testing after consideration of corneal thickness as a confounding factor. J Refract Surg 2012; 28(3): 202–208.

31.

Catalan

Cadarso

Esteves

et al . Assessment of corneal epithelial thickness in asymmetric keratoconic eyes and normal eyes using Fourier domain optical coherence tomography. J Ophthalmol 2016; 2016: e569734.

32.

Cavas-Martinez

Bataille

Fernandez-Pacheco

et al . A new approach to keratoconus detection based on corneal morphogeometric analysis. PLoS ONE 2017; 12(9): e0184569.