Corneal asymmetry analysis by pentacam scheimpflug tomography for keratoconus diagnosis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate intereye corneal asymmetry in Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) indices as a diagnostic method between normal patients and patients with keratoconus. METHODS: A retrospective, observational case series of 177 healthy, 44 indeterminate, and 121 patients with keratoconus classified by Pentacam ectasia detection indices, randomized to analysis and validation datasets. Intereye asymmetry in 20 Scheimpflug tomography corneal descriptors was calculated and compared to develop diagnostic models. RESULTS: Intereye asymmetry was not correlated with anisometropia in healthy controls but was correlated with the ectasia grade of the worse eye in patients with keratoconus. Patients with keratoconus had significantly greater intereye asymmetry in all descriptors except for relational thickness indices. Intereye asymmetry in front elevation at the thinnest corneal location afforded the single highest diagnostic performance (71% sensitivity and 85% specificity), whereas the best multivariate model combining intereye asymmetry in anterior and posterior keratometry, corneal thickness, and front and back elevation at the thinnest point provided 65% sensitivity and 97% specificity. Multivariate models upheld their performance in the validation dataset. Most (more than 90%) indeterminate patients, according to conventional Pentacam analysis, showed within-normal-range corneal asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy corneas are markedly symmetric irrespective of anisometropia, but corneal asymmetry analysis does not provide sufficient sensitivity to be used alone for detecting keratoconus. However, its remarkable specificity suggests that it could be used combined with conventional single cornea Pentacam analysis to reduce the false-positive rate or in dubious cases.

Combining ocular response analyzer metrics for corneal biomechanical diagnosis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate corneal biomechanical properties in non-keratoconic myopic eyes and to identify descriptors for improving the specificity of the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) (Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Depew, NY) testing for subclinical keratoconus detection. METHODS: Observational case series of 52 non-keratoconic non-myopic eyes and 97 non-keratoconic myopic eyes (spherical equivalent < -5 diopters [D]) in dataset 1 and 87 non-keratoconic eyes and 73 eyes with subclinical keratoconus in dataset 2. Examination included corneal topography, tomography, and biomechanical testing with the ORA. Receiver operating characteristic curves and logistic regression were used to identify optimal combinations of biomechanical indices for keratoconus detection. Main outcome measures were corneal thickness-corrected hysteresis (DifCH) and resistance factor (DifCRF), the difference between these two (CH-CRF), and the diagnostic performance of their combinations. RESULTS: Compared to non-keratoconic non-myopic eyes, non-keratoconic myopic eyes with flat corneas (average corneal power < 44.0 D) had reduced DifCH (mean ± standard deviation, 0.11 ± 1.27 vs -0.79 ± 1.50, P < .01) and DifCRF (0.24 ± 1.16 vs -0.70 ± 1.59, P < .01) values, whereas non-keratoconic myopic eyes with steep corneas showed no difference. Keratoconic eyes exhibited lower DifCH and DifCRF values than non-keratoconic myopic eyes. Combinations of DifCH, DifCRF, and CH-CRF had increased specificity (> 80%) for subclinical keratoconus compared to the DifCRF index alone (71%). CONCLUSIONS: In biomechanical keratoconus screening, some non-keratoconic myopic eyes show altered ocular biomechanical properties and are identified as false-positive cases. The low specificity of DifCRF when dealing with these non-keratoconic eyes could be improved by considering additional biomechanical descriptors such as DifCH and CH-CRF, which seem to be indicative of the aforementioned biomechanical profile.

Improved keratoconus detection by ocular response analyzer testing after consideration of corneal thickness as a confounding factor.

PURPOSE: To compare corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) between normal eyes and eyes with keratoconus correcting for the effect of central corneal thickness (CCT) and to estimate keratoconus detection sensitivity and specificity of these parameters. METHODS: Observational case series of 102 normal eyes (control group) and 77 eyes with keratoconus (keratoconus group). Examination included corneal topography, tomography, and biomechanical testing with the Ocular Response Analyzer (Reichert Technologies). The confounding effect of CCT was controlled by stratification (20-µm CCT intervals) and linear transformation. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to identify optimal CH and CRF cutoff points for keratoconus detection. Main outcome measures were CCT, CH, CRF, and diagnostic performance of CH and CRF. RESULTS: Corneal hysteresis and CRF were positively correlated to CCT in both groups. In the control versus keratoconus group, CH was 9.79 ± 1.51 vs 8.49 ± 1.48 (P<.0001) and CRF was 9.55 ± 1.64 vs 7.24 ± 1.43 (P<.0001), respectively. Only CRF remained significantly lower in eyes with keratoconus after CCT stratification in 20-µm intervals, and keratoconus grade influenced CH and CRF. Transformed CH and CRF data confirmed these results. Sensitivity and specificity of CRF cutoff points ranged between 83% and 94% and 69% and 83%, respectively. True positive rate for CRF in eyes with keratoconus with normal topography was 84%. CONCLUSIONS: Corneal resistance factor was better than CH for detecting keratoconic corneas once the effect of CCT on ORA measurements was considered, even for topographically unaffected fellow eyes of patients with keratoconus. The CCT-corrected CRF cutoff values and transformed indices may be of clinical use.