Gi Hyun Bae1, Jae Ryung Kim2, Chi Hoon Kim3, Dong Hui Lim2, Eui Sang Chung2, Tae-Young Chung4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Ophthalmology, Sahmyook Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea; Chungju St. Mary's Eye Clinic, Chungju, South Korea. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: tychung@skku.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate topographic and tomographic changes in fellow eyes in unilateral keratoconus (KCN) patients by comparing them with normal eyes. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative case series. METHODS: Fourteen eyes of 14 patients with unilateral KCN and 34 eyes of 34 refractive surgery candidates were divided into 3 diagnostic groups using a Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera: advanced KCN eyes of unilateral KCN (KCN group, 14 eyes), normal fellow eyes of unilateral KCN (fellow eye group, 14 eyes), and refractive surgery candidates (normal group, 34 eyes). Topographic and tomographic parameters, which were obtained from Pentacam using sagittal curvature, elevation, and corneal thickness maps, were compared among the 3 groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to identify cutoff points in discriminating between fellow and normal eyes. RESULTS: Keratometric asymmetry, topometric indices, and elevation differences (maximum - minimum) on both the anterior and posterior surfaces were statistically different (P < .05). On ROC curve analysis, keratometric asymmetry and topometric index were best at discriminating fellow eyes from normal, followed by elevation differences (maximum - minimum) on the posterior and anterior cornea surface. CONCLUSIONS: Fellow eyes in unilateral KCN showed differences in several parameters that were not detectable with the Pentacam detection program, when compared with normal. However, each single parameter alone is not sufficient to detect early changes; thus, elevation indices as well as indices of anterior curvature should be considered together.
PURPOSE: To evaluate topographic and tomographic changes in fellow eyes in unilateral keratoconus (KCN) patients by comparing them with normal eyes. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative case series. METHODS: Fourteen eyes of 14 patients with unilateral KCN and 34 eyes of 34 refractive surgery candidates were divided into 3 diagnostic groups using a Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera: advanced KCN eyes of unilateral KCN (KCN group, 14 eyes), normal fellow eyes of unilateral KCN (fellow eye group, 14 eyes), and refractive surgery candidates (normal group, 34 eyes). Topographic and tomographic parameters, which were obtained from Pentacam using sagittal curvature, elevation, and corneal thickness maps, were compared among the 3 groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to identify cutoff points in discriminating between fellow and normal eyes. RESULTS: Keratometric asymmetry, topometric indices, and elevation differences (maximum - minimum) on both the anterior and posterior surfaces were statistically different (P < .05). On ROC curve analysis, keratometric asymmetry and topometric index were best at discriminating fellow eyes from normal, followed by elevation differences (maximum - minimum) on the posterior and anterior cornea surface. CONCLUSIONS: Fellow eyes in unilateral KCN showed differences in several parameters that were not detectable with the Pentacam detection program, when compared with normal. However, each single parameter alone is not sufficient to detect early changes; thus, elevation indices as well as indices of anterior curvature should be considered together.
Authors: Eric S Hwang; Claudia E Perez-Straziota; Sang Woo Kim; Marcony R Santhiago; J Bradley Randleman Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Allan Luz; Bernardo Lopes; Katie M Hallahan; Bruno Valbon; Isaac Ramos; Fernando Faria-Correia; Paulo Schor; William J Dupps; Renato Ambrósio Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: J Bradley Randleman; Jihan Akhtar; Michael J Lynn; Renato Ambrósio; William J Dupps; Ronald R Krueger; Stephen D Klyce Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2014-12-20 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Oren Golan; Andre L Piccinini; Eric S Hwang; Ildamaris Montes De Oca Gonzalez; Mark Krauthammer; Sumitra S Khandelwal; David Smadja; J Bradley Randleman Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-02-02 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Umut Karaca; Dorukcan Akıncıoğlu; Onder Ayyildiz; Deniz Dogan; Gökhan Ozge; Gülşah Usta; Fatih Mehmet Mutlu Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2021-10-18 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Cristina Ariadna Nicula; Adriana Elena Bulboacă; Dorin Nicula; Ariadna Patricia Nicula; Karin Ursula Horvath; Sorana D Bolboacă Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-05-26
Authors: Dimitrios Karamichos; Paulina Escandon; Brenda Vasini; Sarah E Nicholas; Lyly Van; Deanna H Dang; Rebecca L Cunningham; Kamran M Riaz Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 19.704