Cargando…

Evaluation of Intraocular Pressure and Other Biomechanical Parameters to Distinguish between Subclinical Keratoconus and Healthy Corneas

(1) Purpose: To assess the main corneal response differences between normal and subclinical keratoconus (SCKC) with a Corvis(®) ST device. (2) Material and Methods: We selected 183 eyes of normal patients, of a mean age of 33 ± 9 years and 16 eyes of patients with SCKC of a similar mean age. We meas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peris-Martínez, Cristina, Díez-Ajenjo, María Amparo, García-Domene, María Carmen, Pinazo-Durán, María Dolores, Luque-Cobija, María José, del Buey-Sayas, María Ángeles, Ortí-Navarro, Susana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8125335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33924937
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10091905
_version_ 1783693470888624128
author Peris-Martínez, Cristina
Díez-Ajenjo, María Amparo
García-Domene, María Carmen
Pinazo-Durán, María Dolores
Luque-Cobija, María José
del Buey-Sayas, María Ángeles
Ortí-Navarro, Susana
author_facet Peris-Martínez, Cristina
Díez-Ajenjo, María Amparo
García-Domene, María Carmen
Pinazo-Durán, María Dolores
Luque-Cobija, María José
del Buey-Sayas, María Ángeles
Ortí-Navarro, Susana
author_sort Peris-Martínez, Cristina
collection PubMed
description (1) Purpose: To assess the main corneal response differences between normal and subclinical keratoconus (SCKC) with a Corvis(®) ST device. (2) Material and Methods: We selected 183 eyes of normal patients, of a mean age of 33 ± 9 years and 16 eyes of patients with SCKC of a similar mean age. We measured best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and corneal topography with a Pentacam HD device to select the SCKC group. Biomechanical measurements were performed using the Corvis(®) ST device. We carried out a non-parametric analysis of the data with SPSS software (Wilcoxon signed rank-test). (3) Results: We found statistically significant differences between the control and SCKC groups in some corneal biomechanical parameters: first and second applanation time (p = 0.05 and p = 0.02), maximum deformation amplitude (p = 0.016), highest concavity radius (p = 0.007), and second applanation length and corneal velocity ((p = 0.039 and p = 0.016). (4) Conclusions: Our results show that the use of normalised biomechanical parameters provided by noncontact tonometry, combined with a discriminant function theory, is a useful tool for detecting subclinical keratoconus.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8125335
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81253352021-05-17 Evaluation of Intraocular Pressure and Other Biomechanical Parameters to Distinguish between Subclinical Keratoconus and Healthy Corneas Peris-Martínez, Cristina Díez-Ajenjo, María Amparo García-Domene, María Carmen Pinazo-Durán, María Dolores Luque-Cobija, María José del Buey-Sayas, María Ángeles Ortí-Navarro, Susana J Clin Med Article (1) Purpose: To assess the main corneal response differences between normal and subclinical keratoconus (SCKC) with a Corvis(®) ST device. (2) Material and Methods: We selected 183 eyes of normal patients, of a mean age of 33 ± 9 years and 16 eyes of patients with SCKC of a similar mean age. We measured best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and corneal topography with a Pentacam HD device to select the SCKC group. Biomechanical measurements were performed using the Corvis(®) ST device. We carried out a non-parametric analysis of the data with SPSS software (Wilcoxon signed rank-test). (3) Results: We found statistically significant differences between the control and SCKC groups in some corneal biomechanical parameters: first and second applanation time (p = 0.05 and p = 0.02), maximum deformation amplitude (p = 0.016), highest concavity radius (p = 0.007), and second applanation length and corneal velocity ((p = 0.039 and p = 0.016). (4) Conclusions: Our results show that the use of normalised biomechanical parameters provided by noncontact tonometry, combined with a discriminant function theory, is a useful tool for detecting subclinical keratoconus. MDPI 2021-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8125335/ /pubmed/33924937 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10091905 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Peris-Martínez, Cristina
Díez-Ajenjo, María Amparo
García-Domene, María Carmen
Pinazo-Durán, María Dolores
Luque-Cobija, María José
del Buey-Sayas, María Ángeles
Ortí-Navarro, Susana
Evaluation of Intraocular Pressure and Other Biomechanical Parameters to Distinguish between Subclinical Keratoconus and Healthy Corneas
title Evaluation of Intraocular Pressure and Other Biomechanical Parameters to Distinguish between Subclinical Keratoconus and Healthy Corneas
title_full Evaluation of Intraocular Pressure and Other Biomechanical Parameters to Distinguish between Subclinical Keratoconus and Healthy Corneas
title_fullStr Evaluation of Intraocular Pressure and Other Biomechanical Parameters to Distinguish between Subclinical Keratoconus and Healthy Corneas
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Intraocular Pressure and Other Biomechanical Parameters to Distinguish between Subclinical Keratoconus and Healthy Corneas
title_short Evaluation of Intraocular Pressure and Other Biomechanical Parameters to Distinguish between Subclinical Keratoconus and Healthy Corneas
title_sort evaluation of intraocular pressure and other biomechanical parameters to distinguish between subclinical keratoconus and healthy corneas
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8125335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33924937
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10091905
work_keys_str_mv AT perismartinezcristina evaluationofintraocularpressureandotherbiomechanicalparameterstodistinguishbetweensubclinicalkeratoconusandhealthycorneas
AT diezajenjomariaamparo evaluationofintraocularpressureandotherbiomechanicalparameterstodistinguishbetweensubclinicalkeratoconusandhealthycorneas
AT garciadomenemariacarmen evaluationofintraocularpressureandotherbiomechanicalparameterstodistinguishbetweensubclinicalkeratoconusandhealthycorneas
AT pinazoduranmariadolores evaluationofintraocularpressureandotherbiomechanicalparameterstodistinguishbetweensubclinicalkeratoconusandhealthycorneas
AT luquecobijamariajose evaluationofintraocularpressureandotherbiomechanicalparameterstodistinguishbetweensubclinicalkeratoconusandhealthycorneas
AT delbueysayasmariaangeles evaluationofintraocularpressureandotherbiomechanicalparameterstodistinguishbetweensubclinicalkeratoconusandhealthycorneas
AT ortinavarrosusana evaluationofintraocularpressureandotherbiomechanicalparameterstodistinguishbetweensubclinicalkeratoconusandhealthycorneas