SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Oftalmoloji Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 3

Topographic Evaluation of Unilateral Keratoconus Patients

Tek Taraflı Keratokonus Hastalarında Topografik Özelliklerin Değerlendirilmesi

Nergis İSMAYİLOVA
Cumali DEĞİRMENCİ
Melis PALAMAR
Sait EĞRİLMEZ
Ayşe YAĞCI
Pages
117–122
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In comparison of Pentacam data, there were statistically significant differences between Groups 1 and 2 in all parameters except corneal volume (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: To compare data obtained by Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam) from both eyes of unilateral keratoconus patients and normal controls.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: This study was performed by retrospective chart review of 919 keratoconus patients.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In comparison of Pentacam data, there were statistically significant differences between Groups 1 and 2 in all parameters except corneal volume (p
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: To compare data obtained by Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam) from both eyes of unilateral keratoconus patients and normal controls. Materials and Methods: This study was performed by retrospective chart review of 919 keratoconus patients. From these patients, 31 keratoconus eyes of 31 patients with unilateral keratoconus (Group 1), 31 normal fellow eyes of these patients (Group 2), and 30 right eyes of 30 normal controls (Group 3) were included in the study. Detailed ophthalmologic examination and Pentacam parameters at initial examination were analyzed and relationships between Groups 1, 2, and 3 were statistically evaluated. ROC curve analysis was also performed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of parameters that could be used to differentiate Group 2 from Groups 1 and 3. Results: The mean age was 30.07±11.00 (15-60) in Group 1-2 patients and 32.33±9.30 (18-45) in Group 3 patients (p=0.392). In comparison of Pentacam data, there were statistically significant differences between Groups 1 and 2 in all parameters except corneal volume (p

Özet

Amaç: Tek taraflı keratokonus hastalarında Scheimpflug kamera (Pentacam) ile her iki gözden elde edilen verilerin normal kontrollerlekarşılaştırılmasıdır.Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma 919 keratokonus hastasının başlangıç muayenelerinin retrospektif taranmasıyla yapılmıştır. Tek taraflıkeratokonus olduğu saptanan 31 hastanın 31 keratokonuslu gözü (Grup 1), 31 karşı normal gözü (Grup 2) ve 30 sağlıklı kontrolün 30 sağgözü (Grup 3) çalışmaya dahil edildi. Tüm hastaların detaylı oftalmolojik muayeneleri ve başvuru anındaki Pentacam verileri incelendi.Bu veriler açısından Grup 1, 2 ve 3 arasındaki ilişki istatistiksel olarak hesaplandı. Ayrıca Grup 2’nin Grup 1 ve Grup 3’ten ayırımınıyapmak için kullanılabilecek parametrelerin duyarlılık ve özgüllüğünü belirlemek için ROC eğrisi analizi yapıldı.Bulgular: Grup 1-2 hastalarında ortalama yaş 30,07±11,00 (15-60), Grup 3 hastalarında ise 32,33±9,30 (18-45) olarak saptandı(p=0,392). Grup 1 ve Grup 2 arasında kornea hacmi dışındaki tüm Pentacam parametrelerinde anlamlı fark mevcuttu (p

🔖

Cite This Article

İSMAYİLOVA, N., DEĞİRMENCİ, C., PALAMAR, M., EĞRİLMEZ, S., YAĞCI, A. (2022). Topographic Evaluation of Unilateral Keratoconus Patients. Türk Oftalmoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 3, 117–122. https://ajindex.com/articles/637733

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol. 1998;42:297-319
  2. Kamiya K, Ishii R, Shimizu K, Igarashi A. Evaluation of corneal elevation, pachymetry and keratometry in keratoconic eyes with respect to the stage of Amsler-Krumeich classification. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:459-463
  3. Palamar M, Onay H, Ozdemir TR, Arslan E, Egrilmez S, Ozkinay F, Yagci A. Relationship between IL1beta-511C>T and ILRN VNTR polymorphisms and keratoconus. Cornea. 2014;33:145-147
  4. Gordon-Shaag A, Millodot M, Shneor E, Liu Y. The genetic and environmental factors for keratoconus. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:795738
  5. Kovacs I, Mihaltz K, Kranitz K, Juhasz E, Takacs A, Dienes L, Gergely R, Nagy ZZ. Accuracy of machine learning classifiers using bilateral data from a Scheimpflug camera for identifying eyes with preclinical signs of keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42:275-283
  6. Gokul A, Vellara HR, Patel DV. Advanced anterior segment imaging in keratoconus: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;46:122-132
  7. Belin MW, Khachikian SS. An introduction to understanding elevationbased topography: how elevation data are displayed - a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;37:14-29
  8. Holland DR, Maeda N, Hannush SB, Riveroll LH, Green MT, Klyce SD, Wilson SE. Unilateral keratoconus. Incidence and quantitative topographic analysis. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:1409-1413
  9. Imbornoni LM, Padmanabhan P, Belin MW, Deepa M. Long-Term Tomographic Evaluation of Unilateral Keratoconus. Cornea. 2017;36:1316- 1324
  10. Klyce SD. Chasing the suspect: keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:845- 847
  11. Muftuoglu O, Ayar O, Ozulken K, Ozyol E, Akıncı A. Posterior corneal elevation and back difference corneal elevation in diagnosing forme fruste keratoconus in the fellow eyes of unilateral keratoconus patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:1348-1357
  12. Lee LR, Hirst LW, Readshaw G. Clinical detection of unilateral keratoconus. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1995;23:129-133
  13. Phillips AJ. Can true monocular keratoconus occur? Clin Exp Optom. 2003;86:399-402
  14. Rabinowitz YS, McDonnell PJ. Computer-assisted corneal topography in keratoconus. Refractive Corneal Surg. 1989;5:400-408
  15. Rabinowitz YS, Nesburn AB, McDonnell PJ. Videokeratography of the fellow eye in unilateral keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:181-186
  16. Wilson SE, Lin DT, Klyce SD. Corneal topography of keratoconus. Cornea. 1991;10:2-8
  17. Bae GH, Kim JR, Kim CH, Lim DH, Chung ES, Chung TY. Corneal topographic and tomogr