Enhanced Combined Tomography and Biomechanics Data for Distinguishing Forme Fruste Keratoconus

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) (Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Depew, NY) variables and Pentacam HR (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) tomographic parameters in differentiating forme fruste keratoconus (FFKC) from normal corneas, and to assess a combined biomechanical and tomographic parameter to improve outcomes.

Methods: Seventy-six eyes of 76 normal patients and 21 eyes of 21 patients with FFKC were included in the study. Fifteen variables were derived from exported ORA signals to characterize putative indicators of biomechanical behavior and 37 ORA waveform parameters were tested. Sixteen tomographic parameters from Pentacam HR were tested. Logistic regression was used to produce a combined biomechanical and tomography linear model. Differences between groups were assessed by the Mann-Whitney U test. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was used to compare diagnostic performance.

Results: No statistically significant differences were found in age, thinnest point, central corneal thickness, and maximum keratometry between groups. Twenty-one parameters showed significant differences between the FFKC and control groups. Among the ORA waveform measurements, the best parameters were those related to the area under the first peak, p1area1 (AUROC, 0.717 ± 0.065). Among the investigator ORA variables, a measure incorporating the pressure-deformation relationship of the entire response cycle was the best predictor (hysteresis loop area, AUROC, 0.688 ± 0.068). Among tomographic parameters, Belin/Ambrósio display showed the highest predictive value (AUROC, 0.91 ± 0.057). A combination of parameters showed the best result (AUROC, 0.953 ± 0.024) outperforming individual parameters.

Conclusions: Tomographic and biomechanical parameters demonstrated the ability to differentiate FFKC from normal eyes. A combination of both types of information further improved predictive value. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(7):479-485.].

Copyright 2016, SLACK Incorporated.

Figures

Figure 1

Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) (Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Depew, NY) signal output with select variables from applanation signal intensity (A1, A2, Applanation peak difference, and Concavity min); pressure (Pmax); time (concavity duration, concavity time, and lag time); applanation signal intensity as a function of response time (slope up and slope down). CH = corneal hysteresis

Figure 2

Receiver operating characteristic curves for function-enhanced combined tomography and biomechanics (FECTB), P1area1, and Belin/Ambrósio display (BAD_D).