Topometric and Tomographic Evaluation of Subclinical Keratoconus

ABSTRACT

Purpose

To investigate the corneal topometric and tomographic findings that can be used in the diagnosis of subclinical keratoconus.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study. The study group was selected from patients with clinically evident keratoconus in one eye and subclinical keratoconus without evident topographic findings in fellow eye. The age-matched control group was selected from patients who were candidates for laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and did not develop ectasia after LASIK surgery at least 1-year follow-up. All subjects underwent topographic, topometric and tomographic (Belin-Ambrósio Enhanced Ectasia Display III) analyses via a Pentacam HR rotating Scheimpflug camera (Oculus, Germany, version 1.20r.98) before LASIK surgery.

Results

The study group consisted of 151 patients (69 male and 82 female, mean age of 24.8 ± 7.2 years) and the control group also consisted of 150 patients (70 male and 80 female, mean age of 26.0 ± 6.3 years). There were statistically significant differences in all measured topometric (p˂.05) and tomographic (p˂.001) parameters between the eyes with subclinical keratoconus and those of the control group. In discriminating eyes with subclinical keratoconus from normal eyes, final D showed the highest area under curve value (0.858, sensitivity 85.2%, specificity 66.7%), followed by maximum pachymetric progression index (0.809, sensitivity 81.9%, specificity 69.4%) and average pachymetric progression index (0.796, sensitivity 81.9%, specificity 68.1%) in receiver operating characteristic analysis.

Conclusion

Topometric and tomographic parameters might be useful for early detection of keratoconus, but the sensitivity and specificity of any parameter are not high enough to be used alone.

KEYWORDS:

• Keratoconus
• subclinical keratoconus
• topometry
• tomography
• sensitivity
• specificity

Acknowledgments

The authors indicate no financial support or financial conflict of interest.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest and have no proprietary interest in any of the materials mentioned in this article.