Evaluation of Corneal Biomechanical Indices in Distinguishing Between Normal, Very Asymmetric, and Bilateral Keratoconic Eyes

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the ability of biomechanical indices provided by the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA; Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments) and dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer (Corvis ST; Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH) to distinguish between normal eyes and eyes with very asymmetric ectasia (VAE) and mild and moderate keratoconus.

Methods: This prospective, observational, and monocentric study included normal eyes (defined as keratoconus percentage index < 60, Belin/Ambrósio total deviation value [BAD-D] < 1.6, inferior-superior keratometry [I-S value] < 1.45 and maximum keratometry [Kmax] < 47) and eyes with clinical bilateral keratoconus (mild and moderate) and VAE (defined as unilateral keratoconus, where one eye showed a clinical keratoconus and the fellow eye was topographically normal [VAE-NT] or topographically and tomographically normal [VAE-NTT]). All eyes were measured by the Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH), ORA, and Corvis ST. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to test the diagnostic ability.

Results: Fifty-eight normal eyes and 238 ectatic eyes were included. The highest area under the curve (AUC) was provided by the Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI) with an AUC of 0.979, followed by ORA corneal resistance factor (0.865), and corneal hysteresis (0.824) separating normal eyes from all ectatic subgroups. The AUC of the CBI was statistically significantly higher than all other parameters (DeLong test, P < .001). A sensitivity of 100% and 70.9%, respectively, and a specificity of 93.1% was found to distinguish normal eyes from VAE-NT and VAE-NTT using a cut-off value of 0.2.

Conclusions: The assessment of biomechanical properties is an additional important method to evaluate corneal ectasia independent of its stage. The CBI provides further information for ectasia screening in cases where corneal topography and tomography are clinically not suspicious by using a cutoff of 0.2. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(6):364-372.].