Posterior corneal elevation and back difference corneal elevation in diagnosing forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eyes of unilateral keratoconus patients
MetadataShow full item record
CitationMüftüoğlu, O., Ayar, O., Özülken, K., Özyol, E. ve Akıncı, A. (2013). Posterior corneal elevation and back difference corneal elevation in diagnosing forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eyes of unilateral keratoconus patients. Journal Of Cataract And Refractive Surgery, 39(9), 1348-1357. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.03.023
To evaluate posterior corneal elevation and back difference corneal elevation in patients with keratoconus in 1 eye and forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eye. SETTING: Kudret Eye Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. DESIGN: Case-control study. METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed patients with keratoconus in 1 eye and forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eye and eyes of normal subjects. All subjects were evaluated with a rotating Scheimpflug imaging system (Pentacam), including sagittal and tangential anterior curve analysis, keratometry, and posterior elevation. The back difference elevation values were extrapolated from the difference maps of the Belin-Ambrosio enhanced ectasia display of the Scheimpflug system. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were analyzed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the parameters. RESULTS: The corneal power, pachymetric progression index, and posterior corneal elevation (posterior elevation and back difference elevation) measurements were statistically significantly higher in eyes with keratoconus or forme fruste keratoconus than in eyes of normal control subjects (P<.05). Using ROC analysis, the area under the curve values of mean keratometry, steepest point on the tangential curve, minimum corneal thickness, pachymetric progression index, Ambrosio's relational thickness, posterior elevation, and back difference elevation to distinguish forme fruste keratoconus from control subjects were 0.51, 0.84, 0.65, 0.81, 0.72, 0.68, and 0.76, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Back difference elevation was better than posterior elevation in diagnosing forme fruste keratoconus. However, as sole parameters, both had limited sensitivity and specificity to differentiate between forme fruste keratoconus eyes and normal control eyes.