[A comparison of device-based diagnostic methods for keratoconus].

PURPOSE Due to the modern device-assisted diagnosis of keratoconus by topography, tomography and biomechanical properties of the cornea, a large number of parameters and indices are obtained as a result of clinical examinations. The aim of the present study was to investigate how modern screening methods support the diagnosis of keratoconus. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this prospective study, 93 eyes of 93 keratoconus patients and 107 eyes of 107 healthy subjects (control group) were included. The keratoconus group contained 85 % males, whereas the distribution in the control group was balanced. The mean age was 35 ± 12 years in the keratoconus group and 27 ± 7 years in the control group. Exclusion criteria for both groups were previous eye surgery, cross-linking therapy, glaucoma, uveitis or other inflammatory diseases of the eye. All patients with a thyroid disorder were also excluded from the control group. All eyes were examined using the TMS-5 topographer, Pentacam and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA). Based on receiver operator characteristics (ROC), the performance of various keratoconus indices was determined by means of the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS All parameters showed statistically highly significant differences between the keratoconus and control group (p ≤ 0.0001). The Surface Asymmetry Index (SAI) and the Keratoconus Severity Index (KSI) of TMS performed well with (mean value keratoconus group/mean value control group/AUC) SAI (2.43/0.36/0.969) and KSI (50.87/0.37/0.912). Pentacam parameters Index of Surface Variance (ISV) and Topographic Keratoconus Classification (TKC) were comparable to TMS parameters with ISV (90.05/15.77/0.969), TKC (2.23/0.00/0.940). ORA indices Corneal Hysteresis (CH), Corneal Resistance Factor (CRF) and Keratoconus Match Index (KMI) showed slightly poorer performance with CH (8.22/11.48/0.909), CRF (7.25/11.20/0.951), KMI (0.31/1.05/0.909). CONCLUSION In this study, tomography and topography was more reliable in diagnosing keratoconus than evaluating the biomechanical properties of the cornea. SAI and KSI (TMS) as well as TKC and ISV (Pentacam) showed improved recognition rates compared to the KMI (ORA). However, individual parameters alone are not sufficient for the diagnosis of keratoconus.

[1]  P. Franko Zeitz,et al.  Keratokonusdetektion durch Analyse der kornealen Biomechanik , 2014, Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde.

[2]  B. Seitz,et al.  Neues zur Biomechanik der Kornea beim Keratokonus , 2013, Der Ophthalmologe.

[3]  R. Shetty,et al.  Keratoconus: A biomechanical perspective on loss of corneal stiffness , 2013, Indian journal of ophthalmology.

[4]  G. Asimellis,et al.  Revisiting keratoconus diagnosis and progression classification based on evaluation of corneal asymmetry indices, derived from Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconic and suspect cases , 2013, Clinical ophthalmology.

[5]  B. Seitz,et al.  Früherkennung des Keratokonus – systemassistierte Screening-Verfahren heute , 2013, Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd.

[6]  B. Seitz,et al.  Biomechanical diagnosis of keratoconus: evaluation of the keratoconus match index and the keratoconus match probability , 2013, Acta ophthalmologica.

[7]  A. Kanellopoulos,et al.  Introduction of quantitative and qualitative cornea optical coherence tomography findings induced by collagen cross-linking for keratoconus: a novel effect measurement benchmark , 2013, Clinical ophthalmology.

[8]  F. Raiskup,et al.  Identification of Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea: The Ocular Response Analyzer , 2012, Current eye research.

[9]  A. Gallois,et al.  Early biomechanical keratoconus pattern measured with an ocular response analyzer: Curve analysis , 2011, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[10]  J. Bühren,et al.  Keratokonus: Klinik, Diagnostik, Therapiemöglichkeiten , 2011 .

[11]  Ö. Uçakhan,et al.  Evaluation of Scheimpflug imaging parameters in subclinical keratoconus, keratoconus, and normal eyes , 2011, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[12]  Myhanh T Nguyen,et al.  Corneal Biomechanical Properties in Normal, Forme Fruste Keratoconus, and Manifest Keratoconus After Statistical Correction for Potentially Confounding Factors , 2011, Cornea.

[13]  D. Gatinel,et al.  Biomechanical properties of keratoconus suspect eyes. , 2010, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[14]  C. Roberts,et al.  Screening of forme fruste keratoconus with the ocular response analyzer. , 2010, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[15]  J. Alió,et al.  Corneal biomechanics, refraction, and corneal aberrometry in keratoconus: an integrated study. , 2010, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[16]  E. Spörl,et al.  Biomechanische Zustand der Hornhaut als neuer Indikator für pathologische und strukturelle Veränderungen , 2009, Der Ophthalmologe.

[17]  David Touboul,et al.  Biomechanical characteristics of the ectatic cornea , 2008, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[18]  I. Cunliffe,et al.  Assessment of the biomechanical properties of the cornea with the ocular response analyzer in normal and keratoconic eyes. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[19]  C. Grünauer-Kloevekorn,et al.  Keratokonus: Epidemiologie, Risikofaktoren und Diagnostik , 2006 .

[20]  G. Gamble,et al.  A Profile of Keratoconus in New Zealand , 2003, Cornea.

[21]  Achim Langenbucher,et al.  Keratokonus-Screening mit Wellenfrontparametern auf der Basis topographischer Höhendaten , 1999 .

[22]  S. Klyce,et al.  Current keratoconus detection methods compared with a neural network approach. , 1997, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[23]  N Maeda,et al.  Comparison of methods for detecting keratoconus using videokeratography. , 1996, Archives of ophthalmology.

[24]  N Maeda,et al.  Automated keratoconus screening with corneal topography analysis. , 1994, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[25]  M. Moshirfar,et al.  Corneal biomechanics in iatrogenic ectasia and keratoconus: A review of the literature , 2013, Oman journal of ophthalmology.

[26]  A. Behrens,et al.  Corneal topography. , 1997, Current opinion in ophthalmology.