A Potential Screening Index of Corneal Biomechanics in Healthy Subjects, Forme Fruste Keratoconus Patients and Clinical Keratoconus Patients

Overview

Journal Front Bioeng Biotechnol

Date 2022 Jan 10

PMID 35004638

Authors

Lei Tian

Xiao Qin

Hui Zhang

Di Zhang

Li-Li Guo

Hai-Xia Zhang

Ying Wu

Ying Jie

Lin Li

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the validity of corneal elastic modulus (E) calculated from corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (Corvis ST) in diagnosing keratoconus (KC) and forme fruste keratoconus (FFKC). Fifty KC patients (50 eyes), 36 FFKC patients (36 eyes, the eyes were without morphological abnormality, while the contralateral eye was diagnosed as clinical keratoconus), and 50 healthy patients (50 eyes) were enrolled and underwent Corvis measurements. We calculated E according to the relation between airpuff force and corneal apical displacement. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were used to identify the predictive accuracy of the E and other dynamic corneal response (DCR) parameters. Besides, we used backpropagation (BP) neural network to establish the keratoconus diagnosis model. 1) There was significant difference between KC and healthy subjects in the following DCR parameters: the first/second applanation time (A1T/A2T), velocity at first/second applanation (A1V/A2V), the highest concavity time (HCT), peak distance (PD), deformation amplitude (DA), Ambrosio relational thickness to the horizontal profile (ARTh). 2) A1T and E were smaller in FFKC and KC compared with healthy subjects. 3) ROC analysis showed that E (AUC = 0.746) was more accurate than other DCR parameters in detecting FFKC (AUC of these DCR parameters was not more than 0.719). 4) Keratoconus diagnosis model by BP neural network showed a more accurate diagnostic efficiency of 92.5%. The ROC analysis showed that the predicted value (AUC = 0.877) of BP neural network model was more sensitive in the detection FFKC than the Corvis built-in parameters CBI (AUC = 0.610, = 0.041) and TBI (AUC = 0.659, = 0.034). Corneal elastic modulus was found to have improved predictability in detecting FFKC patients from healthy subjects and may be used as an additional parameter for the diagnosis of keratoconus.

Citing Articles

Influence of Dextran Solution and Corneal Collagen Crosslinking on Corneal Biomechanical Parameters Evaluated by Corvis ST In Vitro.

Qin X, Hu B, Guo L, Zhang H, Li L, Jie Y Bioengineering (Basel). 2024; 11(11).

PMID: 39593816 PMC: 11592382. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11111156.

Keratoconus Diagnosis and Treatment: Recent Advances and Future Directions.

Bui A, Truong A, Pasricha N, Indaram M Clin Ophthalmol. 2023; 17:2705-2718.

PMID: 37736107 PMC: 10511017. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S392665.

Quantitative Assessment of Biomechanical Properties of the Human Keratoconus Cornea Using Acoustic Radiation Force Optical Coherence Elastography.

Zhao Y, Yang H, Li Y, Wang Y, Han X, Zhu Y Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2022; 11(6):4.

PMID: 35666497 PMC: 9185997. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.11.6.4.

References

Herber R, Ramm L, Spoerl E, Raiskup F, Pillunat L, Terai N . Assessment of corneal biomechanical parameters in healthy and keratoconic eyes using dynamic bidirectional applanation device and dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019; 45(6):778-788. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.12.015. View

Ahearne M, Yang Y, Then K, Liu K . An indentation technique to characterize the mechanical and viscoelastic properties of human and porcine corneas. Ann Biomed Eng. 2007; 35(9):1608-16. DOI: 10.1007/s10439-007-9323-9. View

Elsheikh A, Alhasso D, Rama P . Biomechanical properties of human and porcine corneas. Exp Eye Res. 2008; 86(5):783-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.exer.2008.02.006. View

Shen Y, Han T, Jhanji V, Shang J, Zhao J, Li M . Correlation Between Corneal Topographic, Densitometry, and Biomechanical Parameters in Keratoconus Eyes. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2019; 8(3):12. PMC: 6504131. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.8.3.12. View

Randleman J, Woodward M, Lynn M, Stulting R . Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. Ophthalmology. 2007; 115(1):37-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.073. View

Catalan-Lopez S, Cadarso-Suarez L, Lopez-Raton M, Cadarso-Suarez C . Corneal Biomechanics in Unilateral Keratoconus and Fellow Eyes with a Scheimpflug-based Tonometer. Optom Vis Sci. 2018; 95(7):608-615. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001241. View

Morishige N, Wahlert A, Kenney M, Brown D, Kawamoto K, Chikama T . Second-harmonic imaging microscopy of normal human and keratoconus cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48(3):1087-94. PMC: 1894888. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-1177. View

Wang W, He M, He H, Zhang C, Jin H, Zhong X . Corneal biomechanical metrics of healthy Chinese adults using Corvis ST. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2016; 40(2):97-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2016.12.003. View

Rabinowitz Y, Nesburn A, McDonnell P . Videokeratography of the fellow eye in unilateral keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 1993; 100(2):181-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(93)31673-8. View

10.

Elsheikh A, Wang D, Pye D . Determination of the modulus of elasticity of the human cornea. J Refract Surg. 2007; 23(8):808-18. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-20071001-11. View

11.

Hatami-Marbini H, Rahimi A . Collagen cross-linking treatment effects on corneal dynamic biomechanical properties. Exp Eye Res. 2015; 135:88-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.exer.2015.04.005. View

12.

Sinha Roy A, Shetty R, Kummelil M . Keratoconus: a biomechanical perspective on loss of corneal stiffness. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013; 61(8):392-3. PMC: 3775071. DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.116057. View

13.

Li X, Rabinowitz Y, Rasheed K, Yang H . Longitudinal study of the normal eyes in unilateral keratoconus patients. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111(3):440-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.06.020. View

14.

Zhang H, Khan M, Zhang D, Qin X, Lin D, Li L . Corneal Biomechanical Properties after FS-LASIK with Residual Bed Thickness Less Than 50% of the Original Corneal Thickness. J Ophthalmol. 2018; 2018:2752945. PMC: 5821977. DOI: 10.1155/2018/2752945. View

15.

Shao P, Eltony A, Seiler T, Tavakol B, Pineda R, Koller T . Spatially-resolved Brillouin spectroscopy reveals biomechanical abnormalities in mild to advanced keratoconus in vivo. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):7467. PMC: 6522517. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-43811-5. View

16.

Elsheikh A, Anderson K . Comparative study of corneal strip extensometry and inflation tests. J R Soc Interface. 2006; 2(3):177-85. PMC: 1629069. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2005.0034. View

17.

Nemeth G, Szalai E, Hassan Z, Lipecz A, Flasko Z, Modis L . Corneal biomechanical data and biometric parameters measured with Scheimpflug-based devices on normal corneas. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017; 10(2):217-222. PMC: 5313543. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2017.02.06. View

18.

Kling S, Remon L, Perez-Escudero A, Merayo-Lloves J, Marcos S . Corneal biomechanical changes after collagen cross-linking from porcine eye inflation experiments. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51(8):3961-8. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-4536. View

19.

Goebels S, Eppig T, Wagenpfeil S, Cayless A, Seitz B, Langenbucher A . Complementary Keratoconus Indices Based on Topographical Interpretation of Biomechanical Waveform Parameters: A Supplement to Established Keratoconus Indices. Comput Math Methods Med. 2017; 2017:5293573. PMC: 5320073. DOI: 10.1155/2017/5293573. View

20.

Wang L, Tian L, Zheng Y . Determining in vivo elasticity and viscosity with dynamic Scheimpflug imaging analysis in keratoconic and healthy eyes. J Biophotonics. 2016; 9(5):454-63. DOI: 10.1002/jbio.201500245. View