Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Curr Ophthalmol. 2017 May 22;29(3):175-181. doi: 10.1016/j.joco.2017.05.002. eCollection 2017 Sep.

Keratoconus diagnosis using Corvis ST measured biomechanical parameters.

Author information

1
Department of Optometry, Faculty of Rehabilitation, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2
Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran.
3
Noor Research Center for Ophthalmic Epidemiology, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran.
4
Department of Optometry, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
5
Department of Medical Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To assess the diagnostic power of the Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (Corvis ST) provided corneal biomechanical parameters in keratoconic corneas.

METHODS:

The following biomechanical parameters of 48 keratoconic eyes were compared with the corresponding ones in 50 normal eyes: time of the first applanation and time from start to the second applanation [applanation-1 time (A1T) and applanation-2 time (A2T)], time of the highest corneal displacement [highest concavity time (HCT)], magnitude of the displacement [highest concavity deformation amplitude (HCDA)], the length of the flattened segment in the applanations [first applanation length (A1L) and second applanation length (A2L)], velocity of corneal movement during applanations [applanation-1 velocity (A1V) and applanation-2 velocity (A2V)], distance between bending points of the cornea at the highest concavity [highest concavity peak distance (HCPD)], central concave curvature at the highest concavity [highest concavity radius (HCR)]. To assess the change of parameters by disease severity, the keratoconus group was divided into two subgroups, and their biomechanical parameters were compared with each other and with normal group. The parameters' predictive ability was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. To control the effect of central corneal thickness (CCT) difference between the two groups, two subgroups with similar CCT were selected, and the analyses were repeated.

RESULTS:

Of the 10 parameters compared, the means of the 8 were significantly different between groups (P < 0.05). Means of the parameters did not show significant difference between keratoconus subgroups (P > 0.05). ROC curve analyses showed excellent distinguishing ability for A1T and HCR [area under the curve (AUC) > 0.9], and good distinguishing ability for A2T, A2V, and HCDA (0.9 > AUC > 0.7). A1T reading was able to correctly identify at least 93% of eyes with keratoconus (cut-off point 7.03). In two CCT matched subgroups, A1T showed an excellent distinguishing ability again.

CONCLUSIONS:

The A1T seems a valuable parameter in the diagnosis of keratoconic eyes. It showed excellent diagnostic ability even when controlled for CCT. None of the parameters were reliable index for keratoconus staging.

KEYWORDS:

Biomechanics; Cornea; Corvis ST; Keratoconus

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center