T Seiler1, S Huhle, E Spoerl, H Kunath. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital, Technical University of Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the influence of diabetes on the development of keratoconus to show whether biomechanical effects are also reflected in epidemiology. The two diseases have opposite impact on the biomechanics of the corneal stroma: manifest diabetes stiffens the cornea, whereas keratectasia weakens the tensile strength of the stroma. METHODS: The retrospective case-control study included files of 1,142 patients, with 571 patients in the case group (keratoconus patients) and 571 in the control group (clinical population). The groups were well matched with respect to sex and age. We established the number of diabetics in both groups and compared it statistically by means of the odds ratio to determine whether diabetes can be interpreted as having a "protective effect" whether it is a "risk factor" for the development of keratoconus. RESULTS: Two patients of the keratoconus group had manifest diabetes that developed many years after the diagnosis of keratoconus, while nine cases of diabetes were found in the control group. Statistical analysis revealed a strong protective effect of manifest diabetes regarding keratoconus (odds ratio = 0.2195, P = 0.034). This effect was evident only in type II diabetes patients. CONCLUSIONS: The protective effect of manifest diabetes may be explained by the induction of cross-links in the stroma, preventing biomechanical weakening of the cornea. This study shows that different biomechanical changes can be superimposed and assume epidemiological relevance.
PURPOSE: To assess the influence of diabetes on the development of keratoconus to show whether biomechanical effects are also reflected in epidemiology. The two diseases have opposite impact on the biomechanics of the corneal stroma: manifest diabetes stiffens the cornea, whereas keratectasia weakens the tensile strength of the stroma. METHODS: The retrospective case-control study included files of 1,142 patients, with 571 patients in the case group (keratoconus patients) and 571 in the control group (clinical population). The groups were well matched with respect to sex and age. We established the number of diabetics in both groups and compared it statistically by means of the odds ratio to determine whether diabetes can be interpreted as having a "protective effect" whether it is a "risk factor" for the development of keratoconus. RESULTS: Two patients of the keratoconus group had manifest diabetes that developed many years after the diagnosis of keratoconus, while nine cases of diabetes were found in the control group. Statistical analysis revealed a strong protective effect of manifest diabetes regarding keratoconus (odds ratio = 0.2195, P = 0.034). This effect was evident only in type II diabetespatients. CONCLUSIONS: The protective effect of manifest diabetes may be explained by the induction of cross-links in the stroma, preventing biomechanical weakening of the cornea. This study shows that different biomechanical changes can be superimposed and assume epidemiological relevance.
Authors: Srujana Sahebjada; Elsie Chan; Jing Xie; Grant R Snibson; Mark Daniell; Paul N Baird Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Ruchi Shah; Cynthia Amador; Kati Tormanen; Sean Ghiam; Mehrnoosh Saghizadeh; Vaithi Arumugaswami; Ashok Kumar; Andrei A Kramerov; Alexander V Ljubimov Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 3.467