Objective: To evaluate inter-corneal symmetry of biomechanical parameters in keratoconus patients as measured by an ultra-high frequency corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (CorVis-ST).Methods: In this case series study, 40 bilateral keratoconus patients diagnosed with the Amsler-Krumeich keratoconus classification were recruited from December 2013 to July 2015 at the Optometry Outpatient of the Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University. The same operator, using the same CorVis-ST instrument,measured each eye three times. Twelve inter-corneal parameters measured by the instrument were recorded,including 10 biomechanical parameters, intraocular pressure, and central corneal thickness. Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare inter-corneal differences, while inter-corneal agreement was evaluated by the Bland-Altman plot. Results: The 95% limits of agreement and agreement ratios of the12parameters were as follows: applanation 1 time (AP1 T), -0.56 - 0.61 ms (8.8%, Z =0.441,P =0.229); applanation 1 length, -0.75 - 0.77 mm (45.0%, t =-0.178, P =0.907); applanation 1 velocity,-0.063 - 0.053 m/s (37.0%, Z =-1.528, P =0.171); applanation 2 time (AP2 T), -1.01 - 0.84 ms (4.6%,t =-0.848, P =0.269); applanation 2 length, -0.96 - 1.02 mm (65.8%, t =-0.342, P =0.715); applanation 2 velocity, -0.22 - 0.22 m/s(50.0%, t=-0.087, P =0.812); maximum deformation time (T), -1.38 - 1.11 ms (8.5%,Z =-1.170, P =0.162); maximum deformation peak distance, -1.70 - 3.93 mm (78.8%, Z =-3.321, P =0.001);maximum deformation curvature, -2.30 - 2.74 mm (46.5%, t =1.014, P =0.287); maximum deformation amplitude, -0.34 - 0.28 mm (29.1%, t =-1.057, P =0.221); intraocular pressure, -3.61 - 3.91 mmHg (32.6%,t =-1.152, P =0.267); and central corneal thickness, -135.70 - 152.10 μm (32.3%, t =-0.698, P =0.323).Of all measured parameters, only AP1 T, AP2 T, and T had low agreement ratios, indicating high inter-corneal symmetry. Conclusions: In our study population of binocular keratoconus patients, the parameters
AP1 T, AP2 T, and T had high inter-corneal symmetry. Research protocols using the CorVis-ST to studykeratoconus should take these results into consideration during data analysis.
Rabinowitz YS, Nesburn AB, McDonnell PJ. Videokeratography of the fellow eye in unilateral keratoconus. Ophthalmology,1993, 100(2): 181-186.
[2]
Jones-Jordan LA, Walline JJ, Sinnott LT, et al. Asymmetry in keratoconus and vision-related quality of life. Cornea, 2013,32(3): 267-272. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31825697c4.
[3]
Vazirani J, Basu S. Keratoconus: current perspectives. Clin Ophthalmol, 2013, 7: 2019-2030. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S50119.
[4]
Gomes J A P, Tan D, Rapuano CJ, et al. Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea, 2015, 34(4): 359-369.DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000408.
[5]
Vellara HR, Patel DV. Biomechanical properties of the keratoconic cornea: a review. Clin Exp Optom, 2015, 98(1): 31-38. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12211.
[6]
Roberts CJ, Dupps WJ. Biomechanics of corneal ectasia and biomechanical treatments. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2014, 40(6):991-998. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.04.013.
[7]
Ali NQ, Patel DV, McGhee CN. Biomechanical responses of healthy and keratoconic corneas measured using a noncontactscheimpflug-based tonometer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2014,55(6): 3651-3659. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.13-13715.
[8]
Bak-Nielsen S, Pedersen IB, Ivarsen A, et al. Dynamic Scheimpflug-based assessment of keratoconus and the effects of corneal cross-linking. J Refract Surg, 2014, 30(6): 408-414.DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20140513-02.
[9]
Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2005, 31(1): 156-162. DOI:10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.10.044. [10] Tian L, Ko MW, Wang LK, et al. Assessment of ocular biomechanics using dynamic ultra high-speed Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconic and normal eyes. J Refract Surg, 2014,
30
(11): 785-791. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20140930-01.
[11]
Viswanathan D, Kumar NL, Males JJ, et al. Relationship of structural characteristics to biomechanical profile in normal,keratoconic, and crosslinked eyes. Cornea, 2015, 34(7): 791-796. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000434.
Rabinowitz YS, Nesburn AB, McDonnell PJ. Videokeratography of the fellow eye in unilateral keratoconus. Ophthalmology,1993, 100(2): 181-186.
[2]
Jones-Jordan LA, Walline JJ, Sinnott LT, et al. Asymmetry in keratoconus and vision-related quality of life. Cornea, 2013,32(3): 267-272. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31825697c4.
84
5X.2014.05.003
[3]
Vazirani J, Basu S. Keratoconus: current perspectives. Clin Ophthalmol, 2013, 7: 2019-2030. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S50119.
[13]
Henriquez MA, Izquierdo L, Jr., Belin MW. Intereye asymmetry in eyes with keratoconus and high ammetropia: Scheimpflug Imaging Analysis. Cornea, 2015, 34 Suppl 10: S57-60. DOI:10.1097/ICO.0000000000000608.
[4]
Gomes J A P, Tan D, Rapuano CJ, et al. Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea, 2015, 34(4): 359-369.DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000408.
[5]
Vellara HR, Patel DV. Biomechanical properties of the keratoconic cornea: a review. Clin Exp Optom, 2015, 98(1): 31-38. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12211.
[6]
Roberts CJ, Dupps WJ. Biomechanics of corneal ectasia and biomechanical treatments. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2014, 40(6):991-998. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.04.013.
[7]
Ali NQ, Patel DV, McGhee CN. Biomechanical responses of healthy and keratoconic corneas measured using a noncontactscheimpflug-based tonometer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2014,55(6): 3651-3659. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.13-13715.
[8]
Bak-Nielsen S, Pedersen IB, Ivarsen A, et al. Dynamic Scheimpflug-based assessment of keratoconus and the effects of corneal cross-linking. J Refract Surg, 2014, 30(6): 408-414.DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20140513-02.
[9]
Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2005, 31(1): 156-162. DOI:10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.10.044. [10] Tian L, Ko MW, Wang LK, et al. Assessment of ocular biomechanics using dynamic ultra high-speed Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconic and normal eyes. J Refract Surg, 2014,
30
(11): 785-791. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20140930-01.
[11]
Viswanathan D, Kumar NL, Males JJ, et al. Relationship of structural characteristics to biomechanical profile in normal,keratoconic, and crosslinked eyes. Cornea, 2015, 34(7): 791-796. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000434.
Krumeich JH, Daniel J, Knülle A. Live-epikeratophakia for keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg, 1998, 24(4): 456-463.
[15]
Choi JA, Kim MS. Progression of keratoconus by longitudinal assessment with corneal topography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci,2012, 53(2): 927-935. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-8118.
[16]
Read SA, Collins MJ. Diurnal variation of corneal shape and thickness. Optom Vis Sci, 2009, 86(3): 170-180. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181981b7e.
84
5X.2014.05.003
[13]
Henriquez MA, Izquierdo L, Jr., Belin MW. Intereye asymmetry in eyes with keratoconus and high ammetropia: Scheimpflug Imaging Analysis. Cornea, 2015, 34 Suppl 10: S57-60. DOI:10.1097/ICO.0000000000000608.
[14]
Krumeich JH, Daniel J, Knülle A. Live-epikeratophakia for keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg, 1998, 24(4): 456-463.
[17]
Kennedy RH, Bourne WM, Dyer JA. A 48-year clinical and epidemiologic study of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol, 1986,101(3): 267-273.
[15]
Choi JA, Kim MS. Progression of keratoconus by longitudinal assessment with corneal topography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci,2012, 53(2): 927-935. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-8118.
[18]
Nielsen K, Hjortdal J, Aagaard NE, et al. Incidence and prevalence of keratoconus in Denmark. Acta Ophthalmol Scand,2007, 85(8): 890-892. DOI: 10.1111/j.160420.2007.00981.x.
[16]
Read SA, Collins MJ. Diurnal variation of corneal shape and thickness. Optom Vis Sci, 2009, 86(3): 170-180. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181981b7e.
[17]
Kennedy RH, Bourne WM, Dyer JA. A 48-year clinical and epidemiologic study of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol, 1986,101(3): 267-273.
[18]
Nielsen K, Hjortdal J, Aagaard NE, et al. Incidence and prevalence of keratoconus in Denmark. Acta Ophthalmol Scand,2007, 85(8): 890-892. DOI: 10.1111/j.160420.2007.00981.x.
[19]
Holland DR, Maeda N, Hannush SB, et al. Unilateral keratoconus. Incidence and quantitative topographic analysis.Ophthalmology, 1997, 104(9): 1409-1413.
[20]
Gomes JA, Tan D, Rapuano CJ, et al. Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea, 2015, 34(4): 359-369.DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000408.
[21]
Karamichos D, Hjortdal J. Keratoconus: tissue engineering and biomaterials. J Funct Biomater, 2014, 5(3): 111-134. DOI:10.3390/jfb5030111.
[22]
Bao F, Geraghty B, Wang Q, et al. Consideration of corneal biomechanics in the diagnosis and management of keratoconus:is it important? Eye Vis (Lond), 2016, 3: 18. DOI: 10.1186/s40662-016-0048-4.
[23]
Alhayek A, Lu PR. Corneal collagen crosslinking in keratoconus and other eye disease. Int J Ophthalmol, 2015, 8(2): 407-418.DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.02.35.
[24]
Li X, Rabinowitz YS, Rasheed K, et al. Longitudinal study of the normal eyes in unilateral keratoconus patients. Ophthalmology,2004, 111(3): 440-446. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.06.020.
[25]
Beshtawi IM, O'Donnell C, Radhakrishnan H. Biomechanical properties of corneal tissue after ultraviolet-A-riboflavin crosslinking. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2013, 39(3): 451-462.DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.01.026.
[19]
Holland DR, Maeda N, Hannush SB, et al. Unilateral keratoconus. Incidence and quantitative topographic analysis.Ophthalmology, 1997, 104(9): 1409-1413.
[20]
Gomes JA, Tan D, Rapuano CJ, et al. Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea, 2015, 34(4): 359-369.DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000408.
[26]
Daxer A, Fratzl P. Collagen fibril orientation in the human corneal stroma and its implication in keratoconus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 1997, 38(1): 121-129.
[21]
Karamichos D, Hjortdal J. Keratoconus: tissue engineering and biomaterials. J Funct Biomater, 2014, 5(3): 111-134. DOI:10.3390/jfb5030111.
[27]
Zheng X, Bao F, Geraghty B, et al. High intercorneal symmetry in corneal biomechanical metrics. Eye Vis (Lond), 2016, 3: 7.DOI: 10.1186/s40662-016-0037-7.
[22]
Bao F, Geraghty B, Wang Q, et al. Consideration of corneal biomechanics in the diagnosis and management of keratoconus:is it important? Eye Vis (Lond), 2016, 3: 18. DOI: 10.1186/s40662-016-0048-4.
[28]
Hon Y, Lam AKC. Corneal deformation measurement using Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry. Optom Vis Sci, 2013, 90(1):e1-8. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318279eb87.
[23]
Alhayek A, Lu PR. Corneal collagen crosslinking in keratoconus and other eye disease. Int J Ophthalmol, 2015, 8(2): 407-418.DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.02.35.
[24]
Li X, Rabinowitz YS, Rasheed K, et al. Longitudinal study of the normal eyes in unilateral keratoconus patients. Ophthalmology,2004, 111(3): 440-446. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.06.020.
[25]
Beshtawi IM, O'Donnell C, Radhakrishnan H. Biomechanical properties of corneal tissue after ultraviolet-A-riboflavin crosslinking. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2013, 39(3): 451-462.DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.01.026.
[26]
Daxer A, Fratzl P. Collagen fibril orientation in the human corneal stroma and its implication in keratoconus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 1997, 38(1): 121-129.
[27]
Zheng X, Bao F, Geraghty B, et al. High intercorneal symmetry in corneal biomechanical metrics. Eye Vis (Lond), 2016, 3: 7.DOI: 10.1186/s40662-016-0037-7.
[28]
Hon Y, Lam AKC. Corneal deformation measurement using Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry. Optom Vis Sci, 2013, 90(1):e1-8. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318279eb87.