Cargando…

Comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus

BACKGROUND: To compare the dynamic corneal response (DCR) and tomographic parameters of thin normal cornea (TNC) with thinnest corneal thickness (TCT) (≤ 500 µm), forme fruste keratoconus (FFKC) and mild keratoconus (MKC) had their central corneal thickness (CCT) matched by Scheimpflug imaging (Pent...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tian, Lei, Zhang, Di, Guo, Lili, Qin, Xiao, Zhang, Hui, Zhang, Haixia, Jie, Ying, Li, Lin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8596950/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34784958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40662-021-00266-y
_version_ 1784600503735287808
author Tian, Lei
Zhang, Di
Guo, Lili
Qin, Xiao
Zhang, Hui
Zhang, Haixia
Jie, Ying
Li, Lin
author_facet Tian, Lei
Zhang, Di
Guo, Lili
Qin, Xiao
Zhang, Hui
Zhang, Haixia
Jie, Ying
Li, Lin
author_sort Tian, Lei
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare the dynamic corneal response (DCR) and tomographic parameters of thin normal cornea (TNC) with thinnest corneal thickness (TCT) (≤ 500 µm), forme fruste keratoconus (FFKC) and mild keratoconus (MKC) had their central corneal thickness (CCT) matched by Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam) and corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (Corvis ST). METHODS: CCT were matched in 50 eyes with FFKC, 50 eyes with MKC, and 53 TNC eyes with TCT ≤ 500 µm. The differences in DCR and tomographic parameters among the three groups were compared. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the diagnostic significance of these parameters. Back propagation (BP) neural network was used to establish the keratoconus diagnosis model. RESULTS: Fifty CCT-matched FFKC eyes, 50 MKC eyes and 50 TNC eyes were included. The age and biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure (bIOP) did not differ significantly among the three groups (all P > 0.05). The index of height asymmetry (IHA) and height decentration (IHD) differed significantly among the three groups (all P < 0.05). IHD also had sufficient strength (area under the ROC curves (AUC) > 0.80) to differentiate FFKC and MKC from TNC eyes. Partial DCR parameters showed significant differences between the MKC and TNC groups, and the deflection amplitude of the first applanation (A1DA) showed a good potential to differentiate (AUC > 0.70) FFKC and MKC from TNC eyes. Diagnosis model by BP neural network showed an accurate diagnostic efficiency of about 91%. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the tomographic and DCR parameters differed among the three groups. The IHD and partial DCR parameters assessed by Corvis ST distinguished FFKC and MKC from TNC when controlled for CCT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8596950
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85969502021-11-17 Comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus Tian, Lei Zhang, Di Guo, Lili Qin, Xiao Zhang, Hui Zhang, Haixia Jie, Ying Li, Lin Eye Vis (Lond) Research BACKGROUND: To compare the dynamic corneal response (DCR) and tomographic parameters of thin normal cornea (TNC) with thinnest corneal thickness (TCT) (≤ 500 µm), forme fruste keratoconus (FFKC) and mild keratoconus (MKC) had their central corneal thickness (CCT) matched by Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam) and corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (Corvis ST). METHODS: CCT were matched in 50 eyes with FFKC, 50 eyes with MKC, and 53 TNC eyes with TCT ≤ 500 µm. The differences in DCR and tomographic parameters among the three groups were compared. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the diagnostic significance of these parameters. Back propagation (BP) neural network was used to establish the keratoconus diagnosis model. RESULTS: Fifty CCT-matched FFKC eyes, 50 MKC eyes and 50 TNC eyes were included. The age and biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure (bIOP) did not differ significantly among the three groups (all P > 0.05). The index of height asymmetry (IHA) and height decentration (IHD) differed significantly among the three groups (all P < 0.05). IHD also had sufficient strength (area under the ROC curves (AUC) > 0.80) to differentiate FFKC and MKC from TNC eyes. Partial DCR parameters showed significant differences between the MKC and TNC groups, and the deflection amplitude of the first applanation (A1DA) showed a good potential to differentiate (AUC > 0.70) FFKC and MKC from TNC eyes. Diagnosis model by BP neural network showed an accurate diagnostic efficiency of about 91%. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the tomographic and DCR parameters differed among the three groups. The IHD and partial DCR parameters assessed by Corvis ST distinguished FFKC and MKC from TNC when controlled for CCT. BioMed Central 2021-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8596950/ /pubmed/34784958 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40662-021-00266-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Tian, Lei
Zhang, Di
Guo, Lili
Qin, Xiao
Zhang, Hui
Zhang, Haixia
Jie, Ying
Li, Lin
Comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus
title Comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus
title_full Comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus
title_fullStr Comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus
title_full_unstemmed Comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus
title_short Comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus
title_sort comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8596950/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34784958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40662-021-00266-y
work_keys_str_mv AT tianlei comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus
AT zhangdi comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus
AT guolili comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus
AT qinxiao comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus
AT zhanghui comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus
AT zhanghaixia comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus
AT jieying comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus
AT lilin comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus