Predictive Ability of Galilei to Distinguish Subclinical Keratoconus and Keratoconus from Normal Corneas

Sepehr Feizi, Mehdi Yaseri, Bahareh Kheiri, Sepehr Feizi, Mehdi Yaseri, Bahareh Kheiri

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the predictive ability of different data measured by the Galilei dual Scheimpflug analyzer in differentiating subclinical keratoconus and keratoconus from normal corneas.

Methods: This prospective comparative study included 136 normal eyes, 23 eyes with subclinical keratoconus, and 51 keratoconic eyes. In each eye, keratometric values, pachymetry, elevation parameters and surface indices were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated and quantified by using the area under the curve (AUC) to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the measured parameters and to identify optimal cutoff points for differenciating subclinical keratoconus and keratoconus from normal corneas. Several model structures including keratometric, pachymetric, elevation parameters and surface indices were analyzed to find the best model for distinguishing subclinical and clinical keratoconus. The data sets were also examined using the non-parametric "classification and regression tree" (CRT) technique for the three diagnostic groups.

Results: Nearly all measured parameters were strong enough to distinguish keratoconus. However, only the radius of best fit sphere and keratometry readings had an acceptable predictive accuracy to differentiate subclinical keratoconus. Elevation parameters and surface indices were able to differentiate keratoconus from normal corneas in 100% of eyes. Meanwhile, none of the parameter sets could effectively discriminate subclinical keratoconus; a 3-factor model including keratometric variables, elevation data and surface indices provided the highest predictive ability for this purpose.

Conclusion: Surface indices measured by the Galilei analyzer can effectively differentiate keratoconus from normal corneas. However, a combination of different data is required to distinguish subclinical keratoconus.

Keywords: Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer; Keratoconus; Subclinical Keratoconus.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Classification and regression tree for three diagnostic groups. Percentages and numbers in each node of the tree refer to the proportion of the diagnostic groups which are identified by the decision tree.

References

    1. de Sanctis U, Loiacono C, Richiardi L, Turco D, Mutani B, Grignolo FM. Sensitivity and specificity of posterior corneal elevation measured by Pentacam in discriminating keratoconus/subclinical keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:1534–1539.
    1. Schlegel Z, Hoang-Xuan T, Gatinel D. Comparison of and correlation between anterior and posterior corneal elevation maps in normal eyes and keratoconus-suspect eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:789–795.
    1. Jafri B, Li X, Yang H, Rabinowitz YS. Higher order wavefront aberrations and topography in early and suspected keratoconus. J Refract Surg. 2007;23:774–781.
    1. Wilson SE, Klyce SD. Screening for corneal topographic abnormalities before refractive surgery. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:147–152.
    1. Ambrósio R, Jr, Klyce SD, Wilson SE. Corneal topographic and pachymetric screening of keratorefractive patients. J Refract Surg. 2003;19:24–29.
    1. Nesburn AB, Bahri S, Salz J, Rabinowitz YS, Maguen E, Hofbauer J, et al. Keratoconus detected by videokeratography in candidates for photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Surg. 1995;11:194–201.
    1. Varssano D, Kaiserman I, Hazarbassanov R. Topographic patterns in refractive surgery candidates. Cornea. 2004;23:602–607.
    1. Seiler T, Quurke AW. Iatrogenic keratectasia after LASIK in a case of forme fruste keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24:1007–1009.
    1. Rabinowitz YS. Videokeratographic indices to aid in screening for keratoconus. J Refract Surg. 1995;11:371–379.
    1. Levy D, Hutchings H, Rouland JF, Guell J, Burillon C, Arné JL, et al. Videokeratographic anomalies in familial keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:867–874.
    1. Swartz T, Marten L, Wang M. Measuring the cornea: The latest developments in corneal topography. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2007;18:325–333.
    1. Konstantopoulos A, Hossain P, Anderson DF. Recent advances in ophthalmic anterior segment imaging: A new era for ophthalmic diagnosis? Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:551–557.
    1. Jafarinasab MR, Feizi S, Karimian F, Hasanpour H. Evaluation of corneal elevation in eyes with subclinical keratoconus and keratoconus using Galilei double Scheimpflug analyzer. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2013;23:377–384.
    1. Karimian F, Feizi S, Doozandeh A, Faramarzi A, Yaseri M. Comparison of corneal tomography measurements using Galilei, Orbscan II, and Placido disk-based topographer systems. J Refract Surg. 2011;27:502–508.
    1. Karimian F, Feizi S, Faramarzi A, Doozandeh A, Yaseri M. Evaluation of corneal pachymetry measurements by Galilei dual Scheimpflug camera. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2012;22(Suppl 7):S33–S39.
    1. de Sanctis U, Missolungi A, Mutani B, Richiardi L, Grignolo FM. Reproducibility and repeatability of central corneal thickness measurement in keratoconus using the rotating Scheimpflug camera and ultrasound pachymetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:712–718.
    1. Sonmez B, Doan MP, Hamilton DR. Identification of scanning slit-beam topographic parameters important in distinguishing normal from keratoconic corneal morphologic features. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:401–408.
    1. Nilforoushan MR, Speaker M, Marmor M, Abramson J, Tullo W, Morschauser D, et al. Comparative evaluation of refractive surgery candidates with Placido topography, Orbscan II, Pentacam, and wavefront analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:623–631.
    1. Rao SN, Raviv T, Majmudar PA, Epstein RJ. Role of Orbscan II in screening keratoconus suspects before refractive corneal surgery. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1642–1646.
    1. Fam HB, Lim KL. Corneal elevation indices in normal and keratoconic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:1281–1287.
    1. Quisling S, Sjoberg S, Zimmerman B, Goins K, Sutphin J. Comparison of Pentacam and Orbscan IIz on posterior curvature topography measurements in keratoconus eyes. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1629–1632.
    1. Miháltz K, Kovács I, Takács A, Nagy ZZ. Evaluation of keratometric, pachymetric, and elevation parameters of keratoconic corneas with Pentacam. Cornea. 2009;28:976–980.
    1. Tomidokoro A, Oshika T, Amano S, Higaki S, Maeda N, Miyata K. Changes in anterior and posterior corneal curvatures in keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1328–1332.
    1. Emre S, Doganay S, Yologlu S. Evaluation of anterior segment parameters in keratoconic eyes measured with the Pentacam system. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33:1708–1712.
    1. Smadja D, Touboul D, Cohen A, Doveh E, Santhiago MR, Mello GR, et al. Detection of subclinical keratoconus using an automated decision tree classification. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:237–246.e1.
    1. Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol. 1998;42:297–319.
    1. Rabinowitz YS, McDonnell PJ. Computer-assisted corneal topography in keratoconus. Refract Corneal Surg. 1989;5:400–408.
    1. Maeda N, Klyce SD, Smolek MK, Thompson HW. Automated keratoconus screening with corneal topography analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:2749–2757.
    1. Smolek MK, Klyce SD. Current keratoconus detection methods compared with a neural network approach. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:2290–2299.
    1. Rabinowitz YS, Rasheed K. KISA% index: A quantitative videokeratography algorithm embodying minimal topographic criteria for diagnosing keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25:1327–1335.
    1. Klyce SD, Karon MD, Smolek MK. Screening patients with the corneal navigator. J Refract Surg. 2005;21(5 Suppl):S617–S622.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する