Topographic,elevation,and keratoconus indices for diagnosis of keratoconus by a combined Placido and Scheimpflug topography system

Abstract

Purpose:

To determine the accuracy of various corneal parameters in keratoconus diagnosis using Scheimpflug camera combined with Placido disk corneal topography (Sirius, CSO).

Methods:

One hundred and fifteen keratoconic eyes (group1) and a 111 normal eyes (group2) were assessed prospectively between March 2018 and July 2019 for: corneal keratometric indices (K1, K2, sim K, apex curvature) at different corneal rings of both corneal surfaces, central corneal thickness (CCT), thinnest corneal thickness (TL), corneal asphericity (Q), elevation at thinnest point, root mean square (RMS), and root mean square per area (RMS/A) in spherical, aspheric and aspherotoric reference for both corneal surfaces and keratoconus summary parameters; surface asymmetry index of front and back (SIf, SIb respectively), elevation at keratoconus vertex front and back (KVf, KVb respectively), Baiocchi Calossi Versaci front and back index (BCVf, BCVb) and its vector summation (BCV) and convergence radius and cutoff value for each was calculated

Results:

All studied indices were significantly different between the two groups. The highest predictive accuracy “Area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC)” of 0.999 was observed for BCVf, KVb, RMS and RMS/A at 6 mm aspherotoric reference posterior surface. Keratoconus summary indices had high AUROC (0.986, 0.984, 0.948, 0.999, 0.999, 0.998 respectively). Curvature indices had lower AUROC than elevation indices, except for curvature of corneal apex at anterior (0.98) and posterior surface (0.99). Higher AUROC was noted with elevation at thinnest point especially at aspherotoric reference surface.

Conclusion:

Sirius topography showed high predictive accuracy in detection of keratoconus. Elevation indices and keratoconus summary parameters have the highest diagnostic ability.

Keywords

Corneal topography/imaging systems refractive surgery examination techniques: corneal topography/keratometry cornea/external disease preventive medicine/screening socioeconomics and education in medicine/ophthalmology examination techniques optics/refraction/instruments

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gomes

Tan

Rapuano

, et al. Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea 2015; 34: 359–369.

Finis

Ralla

Karbe

, et al. Comparison of two different scheimpflug devices in the detection of keratoconus, regular astigmatism, and healthy corneas. J Ophthalmol 2015; 2015.

Pérez

Marcos

Peña

FJM

. Early diagnosis of keratoconus: what difference is it making? Br J Ophthalmol 2014; 98(11): 1465–1466.

Rabinowitz

McDonnell

. Computer-assisted corneal topography in keratoconus. J Refract Surg 1989; 5: 400–408.

Varssano

Kaiserman

Hazarbassanov

. Topographic patterns in refractive surgery candidates. Cornea 2004; 23: 602–607.

Reddy

Rapuano

Cater

, et al. Comparative evaluation of dual Scheimpflug imaging parameters in keratoconus, early keratoconus, and normal eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2014; 40: 582–592.

Shetty

Arora

Jayadev

, et al. Repeatability and agreement of three Scheimpflug-based imaging systems for measuring anterior segment parameters in keratoconus. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014; 55: 5263–5268.

Klyce

Karon

Smolek

. Screening patients with the corneal navigator. J Refract Surg 2005; 21: S617–S22.

Muftuoglu

Ayar

Ozulken

, et al. Posterior corneal elevation and back difference corneal elevation in diagnosing forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eyes of unilateral keratoconus patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013; 39: 1348–1357.

10.

Savini

Barboni

Carbonelli

, et al. Repeatability of automatic measurements by a new Scheimpflug camera combined with Placido topography. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011; 37: 1809–1816.

11.

Montalbán

Alió

Javaloy

, et al. Intrasubject repeatability in keratoconus-eye measurements obtained with a new Scheimpflug photography–based system. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013; 39: 211–218.

12.

Wahba

Roshdy

Elkitkat

, et al. Rotating Scheimpflug imaging indices in different grades of keratoconus. J Ophthalmol 2016; 2016.

13.

Shetty

Rao

Khamar

, et al. Keratoconus screening indices and their diagnostic ability to distinguish normal from ectatic corneas. Am J Ophthalmol 2017; 181: 140–148.

14.

Safarzadeh

Nasiri

. Anterior segment characteristics in normal and keratoconus eyes evaluated with a combined Scheimpflug/Placido corneal imaging device. J Curr Ophthalmol 2016; 28: 106–111.

15.

Hashemi

Beiranvand

Yekta

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

16.

Jiang

, et al. Characteristic of entire corneal topography and tomography for the detection of sub-clinical keratoconus with Zernike polynomials using Pentacam. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 1–10.

17.

Dienes

Kranitz

Juhasz

, et al. Evaluation of intereye corneal asymmetry in patients with keratoconus. A Scheimpflug imaging study. PloS One 2014; 9: e108882.

18.

Nasser

Singer

Barkana

, et al. Repeatability of the Sirius imaging system and agreement with the Pentacam HR. J Refract Surg 2012; 28: 493–497.

19.

Gaith

Elkateb

Elseheimy

. Evaluation of two scheimpflug camera-based devices in the analysis of keratoconus. Egypt J Cataract Refract Surg 2017; 23: 23.

20.

Mostafa

. Comparison between corneal elevation maps using different reference surfaces with Scheimpflug–Placido topographer. Int Ophthalmol 2017; 37: 553–558.

21.

Prakash

Suhail

Srivastava

. Predictive analysis between Topographic, Pachymetric and Wavefront Parameters in Keratoconus, suspects and normal eyes: creating Unified Equations to evaluate Keratoconus. Curr Eye Res 2016; 41: 334–342.

22.

Huseynli

Abdulaliyeva

. Evaluation of Scheimpflug tomography parameters in subclinical keratoconus, clinical keratoconus and normal Caucasian eyes. Turk J Ophthalmol 2018; 48: 99.

23.

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: 459–463.

24.

Jafarinasab

Shirzadeh

Feizi

, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of posterior and anterior corneal elevation measured by orbscan in diagnosis of clinical and subclinical keratoconus. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2015; 10: 10.

25.

de Sanctis

Loiacono

Richiardi

, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of posterior corneal elevation measured by Pentacam in discriminating keratoconus/subclinical keratoconus. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 1534–1539.

26.

Mahmoud

Nuñez

Blanco

, et al. Expanding the cone location and magnitude index to include corneal thickness and posterior surface information for the detection of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 2013; 156: 1102–1111.

27.

Saad

Gatinel

. Evaluation of total and corneal wavefront high order aberrations for the detection of forme fruste keratoconus. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53: 2978–2992.

28.

Hallahan

Roy

Ambrosio

Jr , et al. Discriminant value of custom ocular response analyzer waveform derivatives in keratoconus. Ophthalmology 2014; 121: 459–468.

29.

Mounir

El Saman

Anbar

. The correlation between corneal topographic indices and corneal high order aberrations in keratoconus. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol 2019; 8: 1.