Corneal Asymmetry Analysis by Pentacam Scheimpflug Tomography for Keratoconus Diagnosis
Abstract
PURPOSE:
To evaluate intereye corneal asymmetry in Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) indices as a diagnostic method between normal patients and patients with keratoconus.
METHODS:
A retrospective, observational case series of 177 healthy, 44 indeterminate, and 121 patients with keratoconus classified by Pentacam ectasia detection indices, randomized to analysis and validation datasets. Intereye asymmetry in 20 Scheimpflug tomography corneal descriptors was calculated and compared to develop diagnostic models.
RESULTS:
Intereye asymmetry was not correlated with anisometropia in healthy controls but was correlated with the ectasia grade of the worse eye in patients with keratoconus. Patients with keratoconus had significantly greater intereye asymmetry in all descriptors except for relational thickness indices. Intereye asymmetry in front elevation at the thinnest corneal location afforded the single highest diagnostic performance (71% sensitivity and 85% specificity), whereas the best multivariate model combining intereye asymmetry in anterior and posterior keratometry, corneal thickness, and front and back elevation at the thinnest point provided 65% sensitivity and 97% specificity. Multivariate models upheld their performance in the validation dataset. Most (more than 90%) indeterminate patients, according to conventional Pentacam analysis, showed within-normal-range corneal asymmetry.
CONCLUSIONS:
Healthy corneas are markedly symmetric irrespective of anisometropia, but corneal asymmetry analysis does not provide sufficient sensitivity to be used alone for detecting keratoconus. However, its remarkable specificity suggests that it could be used combined with conventional single cornea Pentacam analysis to reduce the false-positive rate or in dubious cases.
[J Refract Surg. 2015;31(2):116–123.]
- 1.Arbelaez MC, Versaci F, Vestri G, Barboni P, Savini G. Use of a support vector machine for keratoconus and subclinical keratoconus detection by topographic and tomographic data. Ophthalmology. 2012; 119:2231–2238.
10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.06.005 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 2.Ambrósio R, Caiado ALC, Guerra FP, Novel pachymetric parameters based on corneal tomography for diagnosing keratoconus. J Refract Surg. 2011; 27:753–758.
10.3928/1081597X-20110721-01 Link, Google Scholar - 3.Rocha KM, Perez-Straziota CE, Perez-Straziota E, Stulting RD, Randleman JB. SD-OCT analysis of regional epithelial thickness profiles in keratoconus, postoperative corneal ectasia, and normal eyes. J Refract Surg. 2013; 29:173–179.
10.3928/1081597X-20130129-08 Link, Google Scholar - 4.Galletti JG, Pförtner T, Fuentes Bonthoux F. Improved keratoconus detection by ocular response analyzer testing after consideration of corneal thickness as a confounding factor. J Refract Surg. 2012; 28:202–208.
10.3928/1081597X-20120103-03 Link, Google Scholar - 5.Ruiseñor Vázquez PR, Delrivo M, Bonthoux FF, Pförtner T, Galletti JG. Combining ocular response analyzer metrics for corneal biomechanical diagnosis. J Refract Surg. 2013; 29:596–602.
10.3928/1081597X-20130710-01 Link, Google Scholar - 6.Li X, Rabinowitz YS, Rasheed K, Yang H. Longitudinal study of the normal eyes in unilateral keratoconus patients. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:440–446.
10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.06.020 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 7.Saad A, Guilbert E, Gatinel D. Corneal enantiomorphism in normal and keratoconic eyes. J Refract Surg. 2014; 30:542–547.
10.3928/1081597X-20140711-07 Link, Google Scholar - 8.Burns DM, Johnston FM, Frazer DG, Patterson C, Jackson AJ. Keratoconus: an analysis of corneal asymmetry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004; 88:1252–1255.
10.1136/bjo.2003.033670 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 9.Zadnik K, Steger-May K, Fink BA, Between-eye asymmetry in keratoconus. Cornea. 2002; 21:671–679.
10.1097/00003226-200210000-00008 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 10.Henriquez MA, Izquierdo L, Mannis MJ. Intereye asymmetry detected by Scheimpflug imaging in subjects with normal corneas and keratoconus. Cornea. 2013; 32:779–782.
10.1097/ICO.0b013e31827b14ae Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 11.Leung T-W, Lam AK-C, Kee C-S.Corneal shapes of Chinese emmetropes and myopic astigmats aged 10 to 45 years. Optom Vis Sci. 2013.
10.1097/OPX.0000000000000073 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 12.Dingeldein SA, Klyce SD. The topography of normal corneas. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989; 107:512–518.
10.1001/archopht.1989.01070010526024 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 13.Falavarjani KG, Modarres M, Joshaghani M, Azadi P, Afshar AE, Hodjat P. Interocular differences of the Pentacam measurements in normal subjects. Clin Exp Optom. 2010; 93:26–30.
10.1111/j.1444-0938.2009.00446.x Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 14.Khachikian SS, Belin MW, Ciolino JB. Intrasubject corneal thickness asymmetry. J Refract Surg. 2008; 24:606–609. Link, Google Scholar
- 15.Ruiseñor Vázquez PR, Galletti JD, Mínguez N, Pentacam Scheimpflug tomography findings in topographically-normal patients and subclinical keratoconus cases. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014; 158:32–40.
10.1016/j.ajo.2014.03.018 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 16.Miranda MA, Radhakrishnan H, O’Donnell C. Repeatability of oculus Pentacam metrics derived from corneal topography. Cornea. 2009; 28:657–666.
10.1097/ICO.0b013e31819b01b5 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 17.Miranda MA, Radhakrishnan H, O’Donnell C. Repeatability of corneal thickness measured using an Oculus Pentacam. Optom Vis Sci. 2009; 86:266–272.
10.1097/OPX.0b013e318196a737 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 18.Savini G, Barboni P, Carbonelli M, Hoffer KJ. Agreement between Pentacam and videokeratography in corneal power assessment. J Refract Surg. 2009; 25:534–538. Link, Google Scholar
- 19.Ambrósio R, Alonso RS, Luz A, Coca Velarde LG. Corneal-thickness spatial profile and corneal-volume distribution: tomographic indices to detect keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:1851–1859.
10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.06.025 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 20.Delrivo M, Ruiseñor Vázquez PR, Galletti JD, Agreement between Placido topography and Scheimpflug tomography for corneal astigmatism assessment. J Refract Surg. 2014; 30:49–53.
10.3928/1081597X-20131217-06 Link, Google Scholar - 21.Bae GH, Kim JR, Kim CH, Lim DH, Chung ES, Chung T-Y. Corneal topographic and tomographic analysis of fellow eyes in unilateral keratoconus patients using Pentacam. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014; 157:103–109.
10.1016/j.ajo.2013.08.014 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 22.Belin MW, Ambrósio R. Scheimpflug imaging for keratoconus and ectatic disease. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013; 61:401–406.
10.4103/0301-4738.116059 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 23.Ambrósio R, Nogueira LP, Caldas DL, Evaluation of corneal shape and biomechanics before LASIK. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2011; 51:11–38.
10.1097/IIO.0b013e31820f1d2d Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 24.McMahon TT, Szczotka-Flynn L, Barr JT, A new method for grading the severity of keratoconus: the Keratoconus Severity Score (KSS). Cornea. 2006; 25:794–800.
10.1097/01.ico.0000226359.26678.d1 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 25.Wei RH, Zhao SZ, Lim L, Tan DTH. Incidence and characteristics of unilateral keratoconus classified on corneal topography. J Refract Surg. 2011; 27:745–751.
10.3928/1081597X-20110426-01 Link, Google Scholar - 26.Buhren J, Kuhne C, Kohnen T. Defining subclinical keratoconus using corneal first-surface higher-order aberrations. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007; 143:381–389.
10.1016/j.ajo.2006.11.062 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 27.Bühren J, Kook D, Yoon G, Kohnen T. Detection of subclinical keratoconus by using corneal anterior and posterior surface aberrations and thickness spatial profiles. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51:3424–3432.
10.1167/iovs.09-4960 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 28.Salouti R, Nowroozzadeh MH, Zamani M, Fard AH, Niknam S. Comparison of anterior and posterior elevation map measurements between 2 Scheimpflug imaging systems. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35:856–862.
10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.01.008 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
