To analyze the tomographically non-affected second eyes of keratoconus patients using the Corvis ST to detect any biomechanical abnormalities or subclinical keratoconus.
Methods
In this retrospective, single-center, consecutive case series 244 eyes of 122 keratoconus patients were analyzed between November 2020 and February 2021. Fourteen fellow eyes fulfilled the inclusion criteria and showed no clinical or tomographic signs of keratoconus. Main outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity, tomographic and biomechanical analyses using Scheimpflug imaging: Pentacam and Corvis ST (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany). Tomographic analyses included anterior and posterior simulated keratometry, K-Max, central corneal thickness, thinnest corneal thickness, Belin/Ambrosio Ectasia Display, and the ABCD grading system. For biomechanical analyses, the corneal biomechanical index (CBI) and tomographic biomechanical index were used.
Results
The mean best-corrected visual acuity was 0.01 ± 0.10 logMAR. Mean K-Max was 43.79 ± 1.12 D, mean central corneal thickness 529 ± 25 µm, mean thinnest corneal thickness 524 ± 23 µm, and mean Belin/Ambrosio Ectasia Display 1.0 ± 0.32. The mean CBI was 0.30 ± 0.21. Regular CBI values were found in six of 14 patients. The mean tomographic biomechanical index was 0.47 ± 0.22 with regular values observed in only two of 14 patients. No signs of tomographic or biomechanical abnormalities were shown in only one of 14 keratoconus fellow eyes, with regular ABCD, Belin/Ambrosio Ectasia Display, CBI and tomographic biomechanical index values.
Conclusions
Tomographically normal fellow eyes of keratoconus patients are rare. In these cases, a biomechanical analysis of the cornea may help detect a subclinical keratoconus. The tomographic biomechanical index was the most sensitive index to verify a mild ectasia.
GrzybowskiAMcGheeCNJ. The early history of keratoconus prior to Nottingham’s landmark 1854 treatise on conical cornea: A review. Clin Exp Optom2013; 96: 140–145.
2.
WymanAL. Benedict Duddell: Pioneer oculist of the 18th century. J R Soc Med1992; 85: 412–415.
3.
SherwinTBrookesNH. Morphological changes in keratoconus: Pathology or pathogenesis. Clin Exp Ophthalmol2004; 32: 211–217.
4.
ImbornoniLMMcGheeCNJBelinMW. Evolution of keratoconus: From diagnosis to therapeutics. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd2018; 235: 680–688.
5.
BelinMWKhachikianSS. An introduction to understanding elevation-based topography: How elevation data are displayed—a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol2008; 37: 14–29.
KanclerzPKhoramniaRWangX. Current developments in corneal topography and tomography. Diagnostics2021; 11: 1466
8.
KhoramniaRRabsilberTMAuffarthGU. Central and peripheral pachymetry measurements according to age using the pentacam rotating scheimpflug camera. J Cataract Refract Surg2007; 33: 830–836.
9.
HashemiHBeiranvandAYektaA,et al.Pentacam top indices for diagnosing subclinical and definite keratoconus. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2016; 28: 21–26.
10.
ShettyRRaoHKhamarP,et al.Keratoconus screening indices and their diagnostic ability to distinguish normal From ectatic corneas. Am J Ophthalmol2017; 181: 140–148.
ValbonBFAmbrósioRJrFontesBM, et al.Ocular biomechanical metrics by Corvis ST in healthy Brazilian patients. J Refract Surg. 2014; 30: 468–473.
13.
VinciguerraRAmbrósioRJrRobertsCJ,et al.Biomechanical characterization of subclinical keratoconus without topographic or tomographic abnormalities. J Refract Surg. 2017; 33: 399–407.
14.
DavidsonAEHayesSHardcastleAJ,et al.The pathogenesis of keratoconus. Eye2014; 28: 189–195.
15.
TengCC. Electron microscope study of the pathology of keratoconus: part 1. Am J Ophthalmol1963; 55: 18–47.
16.
TsubotaKMashimaYMurataH,et al.Corneal epithelium in keratoconus. Cornea1995; 14: 77–83.
17.
SawaguchiSFukuchiTAbeH,et al.Three-dimensional scanning electron microscopic study of keratoconus corneas. Arch Ophthalmol1998; 116: 62–68.
18.
MillodotMShneorEAlbouS,et al.Prevalence and associated factors of keratoconus in Jerusalem: a cross-sectional study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol2011; 18: 91–97.
19.
GorskovaENSevost’ianovEN. Epidemiology of keratoconus in the Urals. Vestn Oftalmol1998; 114: 38–40.
20.
GeorgiouTFunnellCLCassels-BrownA,et al.Influence of ethnic origin on the incidence of keratoconus and associated atopic disease in Asians and white patients. Eye2004; 18: 379–383.
21.
PearsonARSonejiBSarvananthanN,et al.Does ethnic origin influence the incidence or severity of keratoconus?Eye2000; 14(Pt): 625–628.
22.
GodefrooijDAde WitGAUiterwaalCS,et al.Age-specific incidence and prevalence of keratoconus: a nationwide registration study. Am J Ophthalmol2017; 175: 169–172.
23.
ChanEChongEWLinghamG, et al.Prevalence of keratoconus based on Scheimpflug imaging: The Raine study. Ophthalmology2021 Apr; 128: 515–521.
24.
EdmundC. Corneal elasticity and ocular rigidity in normal and keratoconic eyes. Acta Ophthalmol1988; 66: 134–140.
25.
PateyASavoldelliMPouliquenY. Keratoconus and normal cornea: A comparative study of collagenous fibers of the corneal stroma by image analysis. Cornea1984; 3: 119–124.
26.
FullwoodNJTuftSJMalikNS,et al.Synchrotron x-ray diffraction studies of keratoconus corneal stroma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci1992; 33: 1734–1741.
27.
KenneyMCChwaMOpbroekAJ,et al.Increased gelatinolytic activity in keratoconus keratocyte cultures. A correlation to an altered matrix metalloproteinase-2/tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase ratio. Cornea1994; 13: 114–124.
28.
SherwinTBrookesNHLohIP,et al.Cellular incursion into bowman’s membrane in the peripheral cone of the keratoconic cornea. Exp Eye Res2002; 74: 473–482.
29.
ZhouLSawaguchiSTwiningSS,et al.Expression of degradative enzymes and protease inhibitors in corneas with keratoconus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci1998; 39: 1117–1124.
30.
PolackFM. Contributions of electron microscopy to the study of corneal pathology. Surv Ophthalmol1976; 20: 375–414.
31.
BronAJ. Keratoconus. Cornea1988; 7: 163–169.
32.
MorishigeNWahlertAJKenneyMC,et al.Second-harmonic imaging microscopy of normal human and keratoconus cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2007; 48: 1087–1094.
33.
RadnerWZehetmayerMSkorpikC,et al.Altered organization of collagen in the apex of keratoconus corneas. Ophthalmic Res1998; 30: 327–332.
34.
AbahussinMHayesSKnox CartwrightNE,et al.3D Collagen orientation study of the human cornea using X-ray diffraction and femtosecond laser technology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2009; 50: 5159–5164.
35.
MeekKMBlamiresTElliottGF,et al.The organisation of collagen fibrils in the human corneal stroma: A synchrotron X-ray diffraction study. Curr Eye Res1987; 6: 841–846.
36.
MeekKMTuftSJHuangY,et al.Changes in collagen orientation and distribution in keratoconus corneas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2005; 46: 1948–1956.
37.
DaxerAFratzlP. Collagen fibril orientation in the human corneal stroma and its implications in keratoconus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci1997; 38: 121–129.
38.
HayesSBooteCTuftSJ,et al.A study of corneal thickness, shape and collagen organisation in keratoconus using videokeratography and X-ray scattering techniques. Exp Eye Res2007; 84: 423–434.
39.
KohSAmbrósioRJrInoueR,et al.Detection of subclinical corneal ectasia using corneal tomographic and biomechanical assessments in a Japanese population. J Refract Surg. 2019; 35: 383–390.
40.
KohSInoueRAmbrósioRJr,et al.Correlation between corneal biomechanical indices and the severity of keratoconus. Cornea. 2020; 39: 215–221.
41.
ChanTCYWangYMYuM,et al.Comparison of corneal tomography and a new combined tomographic biomechanical Index in subclinical keratoconus. J Refract Surg. 2018; 34: 616–621.
42.
ChanTCWangYMYuM,et al.Comparison of corneal dynamic parameters and tomographic measurements using scheimpflug imaging in keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol2018; 102: 42–47.
43.
JędzierowskaMKoprowskiR. Novel dynamic corneal response parameters in a practice use: A critical review. Biomed Eng Online2019; 18: 17.
44.
ZhangMZhangFLiY,et al.Early diagnosis of keratoconus in Chinese myopic eyes by combining corvis ST with pentacam. Curr Eye Res2020; 45: 118–123.
45.
FraenkelDHamonLDaasL,et al.Tomographically normal partner eye in very asymmetrical corneal ectasia: Biomechanical analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021; 47: 366–372.
46.
VinciguerraRAmbrósioRJrElsheikhA, et al.Detection of keratoconus with a new biomechanical index. J Refract Surg. 2016; 32: 803–810.
47.
AmbrósioRJrLopesBTFaria-CorreiaF, et al.Integration of Scheimpflug-based corneal tomography and biomechanical assessments for enhancing ectasia detection. J Refract Surg. 2017; 33: 434–443.
48.
SedaghatMRMomeni-MoghaddamHAmbrósioRJr,et al.Diagnostic ability of corneal shape and biomechanical parameters for detecting frank keratoconus. Cornea. 2018; 37: 1025–1034.
49.
Ferreira-MendesJLopesBTFaria-CorreiaF, et al. Enhanced ectasia detection using corneal tomography and biomechanics. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019; 197: 7–16.
50.
KatariaPPadmanabhanPGopalakrishnanA, et al. Accuracy of Scheimpflug-derived corneal biomechanical and tomographic indices for detecting subclinical and mild keratectasia in a south Asian population. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019; 45: 328–336.
51.
SteinbergJSiebertMKatzT,et al.Tomographic and biomechanical Scheimpflug imaging for keratoconus characterization: A validation of current indices. J Refract Surg2018; 34: 840–847.
52.
GomesJATanDRapuanoCJ,et al.Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea. 2015; 34: 359–369.
