4.3 Article

Comparison of Corneal Tomography and a New Combined Tomographic Biomechanical Index in Subclinical Keratoconus

期刊

JOURNAL OF REFRACTIVE SURGERY
卷 34, 期 9, 页码 616-+

出版社

SLACK INC
DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20180705-02

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To investigate and compare the diagnostic ability of corneal tomography and biomechanical and combined parameters for detection of corneal ectasia. METHODS: Consecutive patients with subclinical keratoconus (SCKC) and age-matched controls were included. Only one eye from each patient was selected for analysis. The final D value from the Belin/Ambrosio Enhanced Ectasia Display (BAD) was obtained from the Pentacam (Oculus Optikgerate, Wetzlar, Germany). The tomographic biomechanical index (TBI) was derived from the Pentacam and Corvis ST (Oculus Optikgerate). Classification analysis between normal and subclinical keratoconus (SCKC) was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) and partial AUC (pAUC) with specificity of 80% or greater were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-three eyes with SCKC and 37 normal eyes were included. All Pentacam-derived parameters (P < .001) and all but two Corvis ST-derived parameters (P < .020) were significantly different between normal and SCKC eyes. A significant difference was found in the final D value (P = .020) and TBI (P = .040) between normal and SCKC eyes. For differentiating normal and SCKC eyes, TBI and BAD final D value demonstrated the highest AUC (0.925 and 0.786, respectively) and pAUC (0.150 and 0.088, respectively). TBI demonstrated 84.4% sensitivity and 82.4% specificity using a cut-off of 0.16. Comparative analysis between these parameters showed that AUC and pAUC of TBI were significantly higher than all parameters from Pentacam (P = .032). CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, combined use of tomographic and biomechanical parameters demonstrated a higher capability in differentiating normal and SCKC eyes when compared to tomographic analysis alone.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据