Keratoconus Screening With Dynamic Biomechanical In Vivo Scheimpflug Analyses: A Proof-of-Concept Study

Standard

Keratoconus Screening With Dynamic Biomechanical In Vivo Scheimpflug Analyses: A Proof-of-Concept Study. / Steinberg, Johannes; Amirabadi, Nazanin Eslami; Frings, Andreas; Mehlan, Juliane; Katz, Toam; Linke, Stephan J.

In: J REFRACT SURG, Vol. 33, No. 11, 01.11.2017, p. 773-778.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journalSCORING: Journal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Steinberg, J, Amirabadi, NE, Frings, A, Mehlan, J, Katz, T & Linke, SJ 2017, 'Keratoconus Screening With Dynamic Biomechanical In Vivo Scheimpflug Analyses: A Proof-of-Concept Study', J REFRACT SURG, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 773-778. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20170807-02

APA

Steinberg, J., Amirabadi, N. E., Frings, A., Mehlan, J., Katz, T., & Linke, S. J. (2017). Keratoconus Screening With Dynamic Biomechanical In Vivo Scheimpflug Analyses: A Proof-of-Concept Study. J REFRACT SURG, 33(11), 773-778. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20170807-02

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{11e8b21b0d7442348f26bf8bb2954851,
title = "Keratoconus Screening With Dynamic Biomechanical In Vivo Scheimpflug Analyses: A Proof-of-Concept Study",
abstract = "PURPOSE: This proof-of-concept study was designed to analyze the ability of in vivo biomechanical corneal analyses with the corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (CorvisST; Oculus Optikger{\"a}te, Wetzlar, Germany) to differentiate between normal eyes and eyes with manifest keratoconus after strictly eliminating the potential confounding factors intraocular pressure (IOP) and central corneal thickness (CCT).METHODS: In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, after pairwise matching for CCT and IOP, 29 normal eyes and 29 keratoconic eyes (one eye from each patient) were selected as study population. Older CorvisST parameters and the new Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI), including several biomechanical and one tomographic parameter, as well as an adjusted CBI (aCBI) (including only biomechanical parameters), were compared regarding their discriminative ability between both groups.RESULTS: None of the CorvisST parameters of the former software version demonstrated statistically significant differences between normal and keratoconic eyes. On the other hand, the CBI and aCBI reached accuracies of 0.91 and 0.93, respectively, to discriminate between CCT- and IOP-matched normal and keratoconic eyes (CBI: [AUC/sensitivity/specificity]: 0.961/0.90/0.93; aCBI: [AUC/sensitivity/specificity]: 0.986/0.93/0.93).CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the concept of keratoconus screening with the CorvisST is effective in differentiating keratoconic from non-keratoconic eyes. The next steps will be testing the indices in subclinical keratoconus cases and hopefully combining biomechanical analyses with already established topography and tomography indices to further improve current keratoconus screening. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(11):773-778.].",
keywords = "Journal Article",
author = "Johannes Steinberg and Amirabadi, {Nazanin Eslami} and Andreas Frings and Juliane Mehlan and Toam Katz and Linke, {Stephan J}",
note = "Copyright 2017, SLACK Incorporated.",
year = "2017",
month = nov,
day = "1",
doi = "10.3928/1081597X-20170807-02",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "773--778",
journal = "J REFRACT SURG",
issn = "1081-597X",
publisher = "Slack Incorporated",
number = "11",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Keratoconus Screening With Dynamic Biomechanical In Vivo Scheimpflug Analyses: A Proof-of-Concept Study

AU - Steinberg, Johannes

AU - Amirabadi, Nazanin Eslami

AU - Frings, Andreas

AU - Mehlan, Juliane

AU - Katz, Toam

AU - Linke, Stephan J

N1 - Copyright 2017, SLACK Incorporated.

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - PURPOSE: This proof-of-concept study was designed to analyze the ability of in vivo biomechanical corneal analyses with the corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (CorvisST; Oculus Optikgeräte, Wetzlar, Germany) to differentiate between normal eyes and eyes with manifest keratoconus after strictly eliminating the potential confounding factors intraocular pressure (IOP) and central corneal thickness (CCT).METHODS: In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, after pairwise matching for CCT and IOP, 29 normal eyes and 29 keratoconic eyes (one eye from each patient) were selected as study population. Older CorvisST parameters and the new Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI), including several biomechanical and one tomographic parameter, as well as an adjusted CBI (aCBI) (including only biomechanical parameters), were compared regarding their discriminative ability between both groups.RESULTS: None of the CorvisST parameters of the former software version demonstrated statistically significant differences between normal and keratoconic eyes. On the other hand, the CBI and aCBI reached accuracies of 0.91 and 0.93, respectively, to discriminate between CCT- and IOP-matched normal and keratoconic eyes (CBI: [AUC/sensitivity/specificity]: 0.961/0.90/0.93; aCBI: [AUC/sensitivity/specificity]: 0.986/0.93/0.93).CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the concept of keratoconus screening with the CorvisST is effective in differentiating keratoconic from non-keratoconic eyes. The next steps will be testing the indices in subclinical keratoconus cases and hopefully combining biomechanical analyses with already established topography and tomography indices to further improve current keratoconus screening. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(11):773-778.].

AB - PURPOSE: This proof-of-concept study was designed to analyze the ability of in vivo biomechanical corneal analyses with the corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (CorvisST; Oculus Optikgeräte, Wetzlar, Germany) to differentiate between normal eyes and eyes with manifest keratoconus after strictly eliminating the potential confounding factors intraocular pressure (IOP) and central corneal thickness (CCT).METHODS: In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, after pairwise matching for CCT and IOP, 29 normal eyes and 29 keratoconic eyes (one eye from each patient) were selected as study population. Older CorvisST parameters and the new Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI), including several biomechanical and one tomographic parameter, as well as an adjusted CBI (aCBI) (including only biomechanical parameters), were compared regarding their discriminative ability between both groups.RESULTS: None of the CorvisST parameters of the former software version demonstrated statistically significant differences between normal and keratoconic eyes. On the other hand, the CBI and aCBI reached accuracies of 0.91 and 0.93, respectively, to discriminate between CCT- and IOP-matched normal and keratoconic eyes (CBI: [AUC/sensitivity/specificity]: 0.961/0.90/0.93; aCBI: [AUC/sensitivity/specificity]: 0.986/0.93/0.93).CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the concept of keratoconus screening with the CorvisST is effective in differentiating keratoconic from non-keratoconic eyes. The next steps will be testing the indices in subclinical keratoconus cases and hopefully combining biomechanical analyses with already established topography and tomography indices to further improve current keratoconus screening. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(11):773-778.].

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.3928/1081597X-20170807-02

DO - 10.3928/1081597X-20170807-02

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 29117418

VL - 33

SP - 773

EP - 778

JO - J REFRACT SURG

JF - J REFRACT SURG

SN - 1081-597X

IS - 11

ER -