Ocular response analyzer parameters in healthy, keratoconus suspect and manifest keratoconus eyes
Background: To evaluate and compare corneal biomechanical indices and their specificity among keratoconus (KC), keratoconus suspect (KCS), and normal eyes (NL) before and after controlling potential confounders. Materials and Methods: A total of 160 eyes in three groups were included prospectively:...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2015-01-01
|
| Series: | Oman Journal of Ophthalmology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.ojoonline.org/article.asp?issn=0974-620X;year=2015;volume=8;issue=2;spage=102;epage=106;aulast=Mohammadpour |
| _version_ | 1818532598056484864 |
|---|---|
| author | Mehrdad Mohammadpour Ifa Etesami Zahra Yavari Mohammad Naderan Fatemeh Abdollahinia Mahmoud Jabbarvand |
| author_facet | Mehrdad Mohammadpour Ifa Etesami Zahra Yavari Mohammad Naderan Fatemeh Abdollahinia Mahmoud Jabbarvand |
| author_sort | Mehrdad Mohammadpour |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: To evaluate and compare corneal biomechanical indices and their specificity among keratoconus (KC), keratoconus suspect (KCS), and normal eyes (NL) before and after controlling potential confounders.
Materials and Methods: A total of 160 eyes in three groups were included prospectively: NL, KC, and KCS groups based on clinical examination and topography. Corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) were measured by the ocular response analyzer. CH and CRF were compared between the three groups by analysis of variances test.
Results: The three groups consisted of 80 NL, 48 KC, and 32 KCS eyes. The mean CH measured was 10.4 ± 1.25, 7.83 ± 1.28 and 10.17 ± 1.80 mm Hg in NL, KC and KCS eyes, respectively. The mean CRF was 10.23 ± 1.75, 6.5 ± 1.63 and 9.98 ± 2.00 mm Hg in NL, KC and KCS eyes, respectively. Mean CH and CRF were significantly different between the NL and KC (P < 0.05); however after controlling for central corneal thickness and sex; there was no significant difference between NL and KCS (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: CH and CRF can be helpful in differentiating KC from NL eyes; however, they are not valuable for detecting KCS that is the main concern for refractive surgery. Future studies focusing on more accurate tests for identifying KCS, using a consistent grading scale for defining KC and KCS are still warranted. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T17:47:37Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-bff009745a7342ceab6b32407def11e4 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0974-620X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T17:47:37Z |
| publishDate | 2015-01-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Oman Journal of Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj.art-bff009745a7342ceab6b32407def11e42022-12-22T00:56:19ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsOman Journal of Ophthalmology0974-620X2015-01-018210210610.4103/0974-620X.159255Ocular response analyzer parameters in healthy, keratoconus suspect and manifest keratoconus eyesMehrdad MohammadpourIfa EtesamiZahra YavariMohammad NaderanFatemeh AbdollahiniaMahmoud JabbarvandBackground: To evaluate and compare corneal biomechanical indices and their specificity among keratoconus (KC), keratoconus suspect (KCS), and normal eyes (NL) before and after controlling potential confounders. Materials and Methods: A total of 160 eyes in three groups were included prospectively: NL, KC, and KCS groups based on clinical examination and topography. Corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) were measured by the ocular response analyzer. CH and CRF were compared between the three groups by analysis of variances test. Results: The three groups consisted of 80 NL, 48 KC, and 32 KCS eyes. The mean CH measured was 10.4 ± 1.25, 7.83 ± 1.28 and 10.17 ± 1.80 mm Hg in NL, KC and KCS eyes, respectively. The mean CRF was 10.23 ± 1.75, 6.5 ± 1.63 and 9.98 ± 2.00 mm Hg in NL, KC and KCS eyes, respectively. Mean CH and CRF were significantly different between the NL and KC (P < 0.05); however after controlling for central corneal thickness and sex; there was no significant difference between NL and KCS (P > 0.05). Conclusion: CH and CRF can be helpful in differentiating KC from NL eyes; however, they are not valuable for detecting KCS that is the main concern for refractive surgery. Future studies focusing on more accurate tests for identifying KCS, using a consistent grading scale for defining KC and KCS are still warranted.http://www.ojoonline.org/article.asp?issn=0974-620X;year=2015;volume=8;issue=2;spage=102;epage=106;aulast=MohammadpourCorneal biomechanicscorneal hysteresiscorneal resistance factorforme fruste keratoconuskeratoconusocular response analyzer |
| spellingShingle | Mehrdad Mohammadpour Ifa Etesami Zahra Yavari Mohammad Naderan Fatemeh Abdollahinia Mahmoud Jabbarvand Ocular response analyzer parameters in healthy, keratoconus suspect and manifest keratoconus eyes Oman Journal of Ophthalmology Corneal biomechanics corneal hysteresis corneal resistance factor forme fruste keratoconus keratoconus ocular response analyzer |
| title | Ocular response analyzer parameters in healthy, keratoconus suspect and manifest keratoconus eyes |
| title_full | Ocular response analyzer parameters in healthy, keratoconus suspect and manifest keratoconus eyes |
| title_fullStr | Ocular response analyzer parameters in healthy, keratoconus suspect and manifest keratoconus eyes |
| title_full_unstemmed | Ocular response analyzer parameters in healthy, keratoconus suspect and manifest keratoconus eyes |
| title_short | Ocular response analyzer parameters in healthy, keratoconus suspect and manifest keratoconus eyes |
| title_sort | ocular response analyzer parameters in healthy keratoconus suspect and manifest keratoconus eyes |
| topic | Corneal biomechanics corneal hysteresis corneal resistance factor forme fruste keratoconus keratoconus ocular response analyzer |
| url | http://www.ojoonline.org/article.asp?issn=0974-620X;year=2015;volume=8;issue=2;spage=102;epage=106;aulast=Mohammadpour |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mehrdadmohammadpour ocularresponseanalyzerparametersinhealthykeratoconussuspectandmanifestkeratoconuseyes AT ifaetesami ocularresponseanalyzerparametersinhealthykeratoconussuspectandmanifestkeratoconuseyes AT zahrayavari ocularresponseanalyzerparametersinhealthykeratoconussuspectandmanifestkeratoconuseyes AT mohammadnaderan ocularresponseanalyzerparametersinhealthykeratoconussuspectandmanifestkeratoconuseyes AT fatemehabdollahinia ocularresponseanalyzerparametersinhealthykeratoconussuspectandmanifestkeratoconuseyes AT mahmoudjabbarvand ocularresponseanalyzerparametersinhealthykeratoconussuspectandmanifestkeratoconuseyes |