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

Abstract 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 imagi...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Lei Tian, Di Zhang, Lili Guo, Xiao Qin, Hui Zhang, Haixia Zhang, Ying Jie, Lin Li
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	BMC 2021
Materias:	Thin normal cornea Forme fruste keratoconus Mild keratoconus Corneal biomechanical parameters Ophthalmology RE1-994
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/327f6c3f6ee44221be38a3b514ba8592
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:327f6c3f6ee44221be38a3b514ba8592
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:327f6c3f6ee44221be38a3b514ba85922021-11-21T12:25:31ZComparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus10.1186/s40662-021-00266-y2326-0254https://doaj.org/article/327f6c3f6ee44221be38a3b514ba85922021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-021-00266-yhttps://doaj.org/toc/2326-0254Abstract 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.Lei TianDi ZhangLili GuoXiao QinHui ZhangHaixia ZhangYing JieLin LiBMCarticleThin normal corneaForme fruste keratoconusMild keratoconusCorneal biomechanical parametersOphthalmologyRE1-994ENEye and Vision, Vol 8, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Thin normal cornea Forme fruste keratoconus Mild keratoconus Corneal biomechanical parameters Ophthalmology RE1-994
spellingShingle	Thin normal cornea Forme fruste keratoconus Mild keratoconus Corneal biomechanical parameters Ophthalmology RE1-994 Lei Tian Di Zhang Lili Guo Xiao Qin Hui Zhang Haixia Zhang Ying Jie Lin Li Comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus
description	Abstract 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	article
author	Lei Tian Di Zhang Lili Guo Xiao Qin Hui Zhang Haixia Zhang Ying Jie Lin Li
author_facet	Lei Tian Di Zhang Lili Guo Xiao Qin Hui Zhang Haixia Zhang Ying Jie Lin Li
author_sort	Lei Tian
title	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_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_sort	comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus
publisher	BMC
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/327f6c3f6ee44221be38a3b514ba8592
work_keys_str_mv	AT leitian comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus AT dizhang comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus AT liliguo comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus AT xiaoqin comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus AT huizhang comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus AT haixiazhang comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus AT yingjie comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus AT linli comparisonsofcornealbiomechanicalandtomographicparametersamongthinnormalcorneaformefrustekeratoconusandmildkeratoconus
_version_	1718418997112733696

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

Ejemplares similares