4.4 Article

How Abnormal Is the Noncorneal Biometry of Keratoconic Eyes?

Journal

CORNEA
Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 860-865

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000802

Keywords

keratoconus; biometry; axial length

Categories

Funding

  1. Flemish government agency for Innovation by Science and Technology [IWT/110684]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose:To determine whether the noncorneal biometry in keratoconic eyes deviates from that in healthy eyes.Methods:The right eyes of 200 healthy subjects and 76 patients with keratoconus were measured with an autorefractometer, a Scheimpflug tomographer, and an optical biometer. The analysis consisted of a general linear model (GLM), correcting for age and gender effects, comparing keratoconic eyes with healthy eyes, and emmetropic eyes. Next, 20 patients with mild keratoconus in one eye and moderate keratoconus in the fellow eye were analyzed to assess the effect of disease stage.Results:As expected the keratoconic group differed significantly from both the healthy and the emmetropic groups for most refractive, corneal, and anterior chamber parameters (GLM, P < 0.001). For the vitreous depth V and the axial length L, the keratoconic group showed significantly larger values than the emmetropic group (V: +0.68 0.19 mm, P = 0.001; L: +0.63 +/- 0.14 mm, P < 0.001), but not larger than the healthy group (V: +0.18 +/- 0.20 mm, P = 0.364; L: +0.09 +/- 0.14 mm, P = 0.519). Besides the corneal parameters, the stage of the disease led to a significantly deeper aqueous depth (+0.07 +/- 0.02 mm; Wilcoxon signed rank, P = 0.002), but no significant difference in axial length (P = 0.940).Conclusions:Current analysis does not confirm the previously suggested association between keratoconus and higher amounts of axial myopia, which may have been the result of selection bias by using emmetropic eyes as a healthy control group.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available