Cargando…

Topographic Evaluation of Unilateral Keratoconus Patients

OBJECTIVES: To compare data obtained by Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam) from both eyes of unilateral keratoconus patients and normal controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was performed by retrospective chart review of 919 keratoconus patients. From these patients, 31 keratoconus eyes of 31 patie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Değirmenci, Cumali, Palamar, Melis, İsmayilova, Nergis, Eğrilmez, Sait, Yağcı, Ayşe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Galenos Publishing 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6624469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31245968
http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/tjo.galenos.2018.90958
_version_ 1783434268542763008
author Değirmenci, Cumali
Palamar, Melis
İsmayilova, Nergis
Eğrilmez, Sait
Yağcı, Ayşe
author_facet Değirmenci, Cumali
Palamar, Melis
İsmayilova, Nergis
Eğrilmez, Sait
Yağcı, Ayşe
author_sort Değirmenci, Cumali
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare data obtained by Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam) from both eyes of unilateral keratoconus patients and normal controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was performed by retrospective chart review of 919 keratoconus patients. From these patients, 31 keratoconus eyes of 31 patients with unilateral keratoconus (Group 1), 31 normal fellow eyes of these patients (Group 2), and 30 right eyes of 30 normal controls (Group 3) were included in the study. Detailed ophthalmologic examination and Pentacam parameters at initial examination were analyzed and relationships between Groups 1, 2, and 3 were statistically evaluated. ROC curve analysis was also performed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of parameters that could be used to differentiate Group 2 from Groups 1 and 3. RESULTS: The mean age was 30.07±11.00 (15-60) in Group 1-2 patients and 32.33±9.30 (18-45) in Group 3 patients (p=0.392). In comparison of Pentacam data, there were statistically significant differences between Groups 1 and 2 in all parameters except corneal volume (p<0.05). Group 1 and Group 3 were significantly different in all evaluated parameters (p<0.05). Steep keratometry, flat keratometry, mean keratometry, and posterior elevation (PE) were statistically similar between Groups 2 and 3 (p>0.05), while the other evaluated parameters differed significantly (p<0.05). ROC curve analysis showed that the difference in corneal thickness between the apex and thinnest point, progression index, index of surface variance, index of height asymmetry and inferior-superior had the highest sensitivity and specificity in differentiating Group 2 from Group 3, while CCTapex, CCTmin, PE, and minumum radius had the highest sensitivity and specificity in differentiating Group 2 from Group 1. CONCLUSION: In patients with unilateral keratoconus, fellow eyes appear to not be completely normal. Thus, it is recommended that fellow eyes also be evaluated in every examination of unilateral keratoconus patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6624469
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Galenos Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66244692019-07-17 Topographic Evaluation of Unilateral Keratoconus Patients Değirmenci, Cumali Palamar, Melis İsmayilova, Nergis Eğrilmez, Sait Yağcı, Ayşe Turk J Ophthalmol Original Article OBJECTIVES: To compare data obtained by Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam) from both eyes of unilateral keratoconus patients and normal controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was performed by retrospective chart review of 919 keratoconus patients. From these patients, 31 keratoconus eyes of 31 patients with unilateral keratoconus (Group 1), 31 normal fellow eyes of these patients (Group 2), and 30 right eyes of 30 normal controls (Group 3) were included in the study. Detailed ophthalmologic examination and Pentacam parameters at initial examination were analyzed and relationships between Groups 1, 2, and 3 were statistically evaluated. ROC curve analysis was also performed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of parameters that could be used to differentiate Group 2 from Groups 1 and 3. RESULTS: The mean age was 30.07±11.00 (15-60) in Group 1-2 patients and 32.33±9.30 (18-45) in Group 3 patients (p=0.392). In comparison of Pentacam data, there were statistically significant differences between Groups 1 and 2 in all parameters except corneal volume (p<0.05). Group 1 and Group 3 were significantly different in all evaluated parameters (p<0.05). Steep keratometry, flat keratometry, mean keratometry, and posterior elevation (PE) were statistically similar between Groups 2 and 3 (p>0.05), while the other evaluated parameters differed significantly (p<0.05). ROC curve analysis showed that the difference in corneal thickness between the apex and thinnest point, progression index, index of surface variance, index of height asymmetry and inferior-superior had the highest sensitivity and specificity in differentiating Group 2 from Group 3, while CCTapex, CCTmin, PE, and minumum radius had the highest sensitivity and specificity in differentiating Group 2 from Group 1. CONCLUSION: In patients with unilateral keratoconus, fellow eyes appear to not be completely normal. Thus, it is recommended that fellow eyes also be evaluated in every examination of unilateral keratoconus patients. Galenos Publishing 2019-06 2019-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6624469/ /pubmed/31245968 http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/tjo.galenos.2018.90958 Text en © Copyright 2019 by Turkish Ophthalmological Association | Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology, published by Galenos Publishing House. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Değirmenci, Cumali
Palamar, Melis
İsmayilova, Nergis
Eğrilmez, Sait
Yağcı, Ayşe
Topographic Evaluation of Unilateral Keratoconus Patients
title Topographic Evaluation of Unilateral Keratoconus Patients
title_full Topographic Evaluation of Unilateral Keratoconus Patients
title_fullStr Topographic Evaluation of Unilateral Keratoconus Patients
title_full_unstemmed Topographic Evaluation of Unilateral Keratoconus Patients
title_short Topographic Evaluation of Unilateral Keratoconus Patients
title_sort topographic evaluation of unilateral keratoconus patients
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6624469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31245968
http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/tjo.galenos.2018.90958
work_keys_str_mv AT degirmencicumali topographicevaluationofunilateralkeratoconuspatients
AT palamarmelis topographicevaluationofunilateralkeratoconuspatients
AT ismayilovanergis topographicevaluationofunilateralkeratoconuspatients
AT egrilmezsait topographicevaluationofunilateralkeratoconuspatients
AT yagcıayse topographicevaluationofunilateralkeratoconuspatients