Objective and subjective diagnostic parameters in the fellow eye of unilateral keratoconus

Eman A Awad, Waleed A Abou Samra, Magda A Torky, Amr M El-Kannishy, Eman A Awad, Waleed A Abou Samra, Magda A Torky, Amr M El-Kannishy

Abstract

Background: Keratoconus (KC) is usually a bilateral corneal ectatic disease. For significant asymmetric presentation (so called unilateral KC), the fellow eye has the mildest and earliest form of the disease, which is typically called forme fruste keratoconus. The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of parameters derived from a Scheimpflug imaging system (Pentacam) as well as the changes in the quality of mesopic vision in the apparently normal fellow eye (forme fruste) to detect the earliest and most sensitive parameters.

Methods: Patients with clinical keratoconus in one eye and forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eye were compared to subjects with normal eyes. The patients were examined using a rotating Scheimpflug imaging system (Pentacam).The following parameters were evaluated: keratometry, minimum corneal thickness, pachymetry progression index (PPI), Ambrósio relational thickness (ART), posterior elevation, back difference elevation (BDE) and multimetric D index(D index). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were analyzed by evaluating the area under the curve (AUC) to detect the sensitivity and specificity of each parameter. Mesopic vision evaluations were performed by contrast sensitivity and glare tests for each group.

Results: A total of 48 patients with clinical keratoconus in one eye and forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eye and 72normal subjects were evaluated. In the clinical keratoconus eyes, the mean K, back difference elevation (BDE), pachymetric progression index maximum(PPI max), and multimetric D were significantly higher compared to the normal subjects, whereas the corneal pachymetry and Ambrósio relational thickness maximum (ART max) were significantly lower. In the forme fruste eyes, the ROC analysis showed that the AUC values of the mean K, thinnest pachymetry, ARTmax, BDE, D index, and PPI max were 0.82, 0.61, 0.88, 0. 67, and 0.64, respectively. The contrast sensitivity and glare tests were significantly affected in the forme fruste cases.

Conclusion: In forme fruste keratoconus eyes, the ART max is considered a highly sensitive objective parameter. Contrast sensitivity and glare is an important subjective test, which is affected in forme fruste patients.

Keywords: Ambrósio relational thickness; Contrast sensitivity and glare; Forme fruste; Pentacam.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the institutional research board of the Mansoura faculty of medicine(IRB) (R/17.05.25) and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients included in the study provided informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable for this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
a ROC curve for Ambrósio relational thickness (ART max) and thinnest pachymetry. b combined ROC curves of multimetric D index(D), back difference elevation (BDE), Posterior elevation(PE) and pachymetric progression index maximum (PPI max) between the forme fruste and control cases
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a ROC curve for Ambrósio relational thickness (ART max) and thinnest pachymetry. b combined ROC curves of multi metric D index(D), back difference elevation (BDE), Posterior elevation (PE) and steepest Keratometry (Ks) between the clinical keratoconus and control cases

References

    1. Rabinowitz YZ, Nesburn AB, Mcdonnell PJ. Videakeratography of the fellow eye in unilateral keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:181–186. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(93)31673-8.
    1. Li X, Rabinowitz YS, Rasheed K, Yang H. Longitudinal study of the normal eyes in unilateral keratoconus patients. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:440–446. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.06.020.
    1. Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol. 1998;42:297–319. doi: 10.1016/S0039-6257(97)00119-7.
    1. Seiler T, Quurke AW. Iatrogenic keratoconus after LASIK in a case of forme fruste keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24:1007–1009. doi: 10.1016/S0886-3350(98)80057-6.
    1. Randeleman JB, Woodward M, Lynn MJ, Stulting RD. Risk assessment for ectesia after corneal refractive surgery. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:691–701. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.037.
    1. Muftuoglu O, Ayer O, Ozulken K, Ozyol E, Akinci A. Posterior corneal elevation and back difference corneal elevation in diagnosing forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eyes of unilateral keratoconus patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:1348–1357. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.03.023.
    1. Ys R. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol. 1998;42:297–319. doi: 10.1016/S0039-6257(97)00119-7.
    1. Rabinowitz YS, Mcdonnell PJ. Computer assisted corneal topography in keratoconus. Refract Corneal Surg. 1989;5:400–408.
    1. Ambrósio RJ, ALC C, Guerra FP, Louzada R, Sinha Roy A, Luz A, Wj D, Belin MW. Novel pachymetric parametrere based on corneal tomography for diagnosing keratoconus. J Refract Surg. 2011;27:753–758. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20110721-01.
    1. SaadA GD. Topographic and tomographic properties of formefrustekeratoconus corneas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:5546–5555. doi: 10.1167/iovs.10-5369.
    1. Edwards M, CNJ M, Dean S. The genetics of keratoconus. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2001;29:345–351. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-9071.2001.d01-16.x.
    1. Amsler M. The “forme fruste” of keratoconus (in German) Wein Klin Wochenschr. 1961;73:842–843.
    1. Klyce SD. Chasing the suspect: keratoconus detection with KISA% method-another view. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26:472–474. doi: 10.1016/S0886-3350(00)00384-9.
    1. Muftuoglu O, Ayar O, Humeric V, Orucoglu F, Kilic I. Comparison of multimetric D index with keratomtric, pachymtric, and posterior elevation parameters in diagnosing subclinical keratoconus in the fellow eyes of asymmetric keratoconus patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41:557–565. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.05.052.
    1. Gatinel D, Saad A. The challenges of the detection of subclinical keratoconus at its earliest stage. Int j keratocoectatic Corneal Dis. 2012;1:36–43. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10025-1007.
    1. Ambrósio RJR, Alonso RS, Luz A, LG CV. Corneal thickness spatial profile and corneal volume distribution: Tomographic indices to detect keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:1851–1859. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.06.025.
    1. Ucakhan OD, Cetinkor V, Ozkan M, Kanpolat A. Evaluation of the Scheimpflug imging parameters in subclinical keratoconus, keratoconus, and normal eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:1116–1124. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.12.049.
    1. BilenNB HIF, Arce CG. Correlation between visual function and refractive, topographic, pachymetric and aberrometric data in eyes with keratoconus. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016;9(8):1127–1133.
    1. Pelli DG, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vision Sci. 1988;2(3):187–199.
    1. Maeda N, Sato S, Watanabe H, Inoue Y, Fujikado T, Shimomura Y, Tano Y. Prediction of letter contrast sensitivity using videokeratotopographic indices. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129(6):759–763. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9394(00)00380-9.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다