4.4 Article

Correlation Between Corneal Biomechanical Indices and the Severity of Keratoconus

期刊

CORNEA
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 215-221

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002129

关键词

corneal biomechanics; corneal tomography; keratoconus; progression; severity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate the correlations between the biomechanical indices determined in Scheimpflug-based corneal biomechanical assessments and the severity of keratoconus (KC) based on corneal tomographic assessments in patients with different stages of KC. Methods: Fifty-three patients who presented with clinical KC in 1 eye and KC suspect in the fellow eye were included. Corneal tomographic and biomechanical assessments were performed using the Pentacam HR and Corvis ST (Oculus Optikgerate GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany). Correlations between the tomographic indices and biomechanical indices were assessed, including the anterior radius of curvature (ARC) and posterior radius of curvature (PRC) at a 3.0-mm optical zone and the thinnest pachymetry (Tmin), deformation amplitude ratio max 2 mm (DAR2mm), integrated radius, stiffness parameter at the first applanation, and linear Corvis Biomechanical Index (beta). Results: DAR2mm correlated negatively with ARC (R = -0.722), PRC (R = -0.677), and Tmin (R= -0.650) (P < 0.001 for all). Integrated radius correlated negatively with ARC (R = -0.700), PRC (R = -0.668), and Tmin (R= -0.648) (P < 0.001 for all). Stiffness parameter at the first applanation correlated positively with ARC (R = 0.622), PRC (R = 0.601), and Tmin (R = 0.703) (P < 0.001 for all). The Corvis Biomechanical Index beta correlated negatively with ARC (R = -0.754), PRC (R = -0.755), and Tmin (R= -0.765) (P < 0.001 for all). Conclusions: Corneal biomechanical indices correlated with corneal tomographic parameters in patients with KC. These findings support the possibility of developing biomechanical-based staging classification for KC in combination with topographic or tomographic indices.

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

4.4
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