| Citation:Ayar O,Ozmen MC,Muftuoglu O,Akdemir MO,Koc M,Ozulken K.In-vivo corneal biomechanical analysis of unilateral keratoconus.Int J Ophthalmol 2015;8(6):1141-1145,doi:10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.06.11 |
|
| In-vivo corneal biomechanical analysis of unilateral keratoconus |
| Received:April 25, 2014 Revised:March 17, 2015 |
| Email this Article Add to Favorites Print |
| DOI:10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.06.11 |
| Key Words:forme fruste keratoconus keratoconus ocular response analyzer |
| Fund Project: |
| Author | Institution |
| Orhan Ayar |
Department of Ophthalmology, Bulent Ecevit University, Kozlu 67600, Zonguldak, Turkey |
| Mehmet Cuneyt Ozmen |
Department of Ophthalmology, Gazi University, Ankara 06500, Turkey |
| Orkun Muftuoglu |
Department of Ophthalmology, Medipol University, Istanbul 34214, Turkey |
| Mehmet Orcun Akdemir |
Department of Ophthalmology, Bulent Ecevit University, Kozlu 67600, Zonguldak, Turkey |
| Mustafa Koc |
Ulucanlar Eye Research and Education Hospital, Ankara 06340, Turkey |
| Kemal Ozulken |
Kudret Eye Hospital, Ankara 06700, Turkey |
|
| Hits: 1142 |
| Download times: 236 |
| Abstract: |
| AIM: To evaluate and compare corneal biomechanical findings measured by ocular response analyzer, topographic and pachymetric findings in patients with unilateral keratoconus patients and healthy controls.
METHODS: This is an observational, case-control study. Patients with keratoconus in one eye and forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eye were compared with sex and age matched with controls healthy subjects. All subjects were evaluated with rotating scheimpflug imaging system. The receiver-operating-characteristic curves were analyzed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the parameters.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with keratoconus in one eye and forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eye were compared with 40 eyes of 40 normal subjects. Corneal hysteresis (CH) was 8.0±1.7 mm Hg in keratoconus group, 8.3±1.6 mm Hg in forme fruste keratoconus group, and 9.8±1.6 mm Hg in control groups (P=0.54 between keratoconus and forme fruste keratoconus groups, P<0.01 between control group and other groups). Corneal resistance factor (CRF) was 7.1±2.2 mm Hg in keratoconus group, 7.8±1.2 mm Hg in forme fruste keratoconus group and 9.9±1.5 mm Hg in control group (P<0.001 between control group and other groups). Using receiver-operating-characteristic analysis, the area under curve values of the parameters to distinguish forme fruste keratoconus from control subjects were: CH (0.768), CRF (0.866). Best cut-off points were 9.3 mm Hg and 8.8 mm Hg for CH and CRF respectively.
CONCLUSION: Ocular response analyzer parameters (CH and CRF) are found to be significantly lower in forme fruste keratoconus patients compared to normal control subjects. |
| Supplementary Material |
| PDF Fulltext Download reader View/Add Comment |
|
|
|
|