Corneal Biomechanical Assessment Using Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology in Keratoconic and Normal Eyes

Purpose. To compare the corneal biomechanical properties of keratoconic patients and age-matched controls using corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (Corvis ST). Methods. Sixty keratoconic eyes from 47 keratoconus patients and 60 normal eyes from 60 controls were enrolled in this prospective...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lei Tian, Yi-Fei Huang, Li-Qiang Wang, Hua Bai, Qun Wang, Jing-Jing Jiang, Ying Wu, Min Gao
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2014-01-01
Series:Journal of Ophthalmology
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/147516
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832568345900089344
author Lei Tian
Yi-Fei Huang
Li-Qiang Wang
Hua Bai
Qun Wang
Jing-Jing Jiang
Ying Wu
Min Gao
author_facet Lei Tian
Yi-Fei Huang
Li-Qiang Wang
Hua Bai
Qun Wang
Jing-Jing Jiang
Ying Wu
Min Gao
author_sort Lei Tian
collection DOAJ
description Purpose. To compare the corneal biomechanical properties of keratoconic patients and age-matched controls using corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (Corvis ST). Methods. Sixty keratoconic eyes from 47 keratoconus patients and 60 normal eyes from 60 controls were enrolled in this prospective study. Tomography and biomechanical parameters of all eyes were obtained with the Pentacam and Corvis ST, respectively. Intraocular pressure was measured using a Goldmann applanation tonometer. Results. The tomography and biomechanical parameters of the keratoconic corneas were significantly different from those of the normal corneas except for the anterior chamber angle, first applanation length, the highest concavity time, and peak distance. The deformation amplitude was the best predictive parameter (area under the curve: 0.882), with a sensitivity of 81.7%, although there was a significant overlap between keratoconic and normal corneas that ranged from 1.0 to 1.4 mm. In both the keratoconus and control groups, the deformation amplitude was negatively correlated with intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness, and corneal volume at 3 and 5 mm. Conclusions. Corvis ST offers an alternative method for measuring corneal biomechanical properties. The possibility of classifying keratoconus based on deformation amplitude deserves clinical attention.
format Article
id doaj-art-3423049e257044c4a8f0e6ea5ae28e5b
institution Kabale University
issn 2090-004X
2090-0058
language English
publishDate 2014-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Journal of Ophthalmology
spelling doaj-art-3423049e257044c4a8f0e6ea5ae28e5b2025-02-03T00:59:13ZengWileyJournal of Ophthalmology2090-004X2090-00582014-01-01201410.1155/2014/147516147516Corneal Biomechanical Assessment Using Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology in Keratoconic and Normal EyesLei Tian0Yi-Fei Huang1Li-Qiang Wang2Hua Bai3Qun Wang4Jing-Jing Jiang5Ying Wu6Min Gao7Department of Ophthalmology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Fuxing Road 28, Beijing 100853, ChinaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Fuxing Road 28, Beijing 100853, ChinaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Fuxing Road 28, Beijing 100853, ChinaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Fuxing Road 28, Beijing 100853, ChinaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Fuxing Road 28, Beijing 100853, ChinaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Fuxing Road 28, Beijing 100853, ChinaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Fuxing Road 28, Beijing 100853, ChinaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Fuxing Road 28, Beijing 100853, ChinaPurpose. To compare the corneal biomechanical properties of keratoconic patients and age-matched controls using corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (Corvis ST). Methods. Sixty keratoconic eyes from 47 keratoconus patients and 60 normal eyes from 60 controls were enrolled in this prospective study. Tomography and biomechanical parameters of all eyes were obtained with the Pentacam and Corvis ST, respectively. Intraocular pressure was measured using a Goldmann applanation tonometer. Results. The tomography and biomechanical parameters of the keratoconic corneas were significantly different from those of the normal corneas except for the anterior chamber angle, first applanation length, the highest concavity time, and peak distance. The deformation amplitude was the best predictive parameter (area under the curve: 0.882), with a sensitivity of 81.7%, although there was a significant overlap between keratoconic and normal corneas that ranged from 1.0 to 1.4 mm. In both the keratoconus and control groups, the deformation amplitude was negatively correlated with intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness, and corneal volume at 3 and 5 mm. Conclusions. Corvis ST offers an alternative method for measuring corneal biomechanical properties. The possibility of classifying keratoconus based on deformation amplitude deserves clinical attention.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/147516
spellingShingle Lei Tian
Yi-Fei Huang
Li-Qiang Wang
Hua Bai
Qun Wang
Jing-Jing Jiang
Ying Wu
Min Gao
Corneal Biomechanical Assessment Using Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology in Keratoconic and Normal Eyes
Journal of Ophthalmology
title Corneal Biomechanical Assessment Using Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology in Keratoconic and Normal Eyes
title_full Corneal Biomechanical Assessment Using Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology in Keratoconic and Normal Eyes
title_fullStr Corneal Biomechanical Assessment Using Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology in Keratoconic and Normal Eyes
title_full_unstemmed Corneal Biomechanical Assessment Using Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology in Keratoconic and Normal Eyes
title_short Corneal Biomechanical Assessment Using Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology in Keratoconic and Normal Eyes
title_sort corneal biomechanical assessment using corneal visualization scheimpflug technology in keratoconic and normal eyes
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/147516
work_keys_str_mv AT leitian cornealbiomechanicalassessmentusingcornealvisualizationscheimpflugtechnologyinkeratoconicandnormaleyes
AT yifeihuang cornealbiomechanicalassessmentusingcornealvisualizationscheimpflugtechnologyinkeratoconicandnormaleyes
AT liqiangwang cornealbiomechanicalassessmentusingcornealvisualizationscheimpflugtechnologyinkeratoconicandnormaleyes
AT huabai cornealbiomechanicalassessmentusingcornealvisualizationscheimpflugtechnologyinkeratoconicandnormaleyes
AT qunwang cornealbiomechanicalassessmentusingcornealvisualizationscheimpflugtechnologyinkeratoconicandnormaleyes
AT jingjingjiang cornealbiomechanicalassessmentusingcornealvisualizationscheimpflugtechnologyinkeratoconicandnormaleyes
AT yingwu cornealbiomechanicalassessmentusingcornealvisualizationscheimpflugtechnologyinkeratoconicandnormaleyes
AT mingao cornealbiomechanicalassessmentusingcornealvisualizationscheimpflugtechnologyinkeratoconicandnormaleyes