Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Ocular Response Analyzer Parameters in Healthy, Keratoconus Suspect and Manifest Keratoconus Eyes Publisher



Mohammadpour M1 ; Etesami I1 ; Yavari Z1 ; Naderan M1 ; Abdollahinia F1 ; Jabbarvand M1
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Eye Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Source: Oman Journal of Ophthalmology Published:2015


Abstract

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.