Purpose: To evaluate the differences in corneo-scleral topographic profile between healthy and keratoconus eyes, and their potential diagnostic ability for keratoconus detection. Methods: Prospective comparative study including 21 keratoconic eyes (11 patients) and 88 healthy eyes (88 patients). In all cases, a complete eye exam was performed including an evaluation of the corneo-scleral profile. The diagnostic ability of corneo-scleral topographic parameters to detect keratoconus was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: A significant lower inferior tangent angle at limbus (ITA) was found in the keratoconic group compared to the control group (p = 0.024). Regarding sagittal heights, significant differences between groups were found in temporal sagittal height (TSH) for 11 mm (p = 0.040), 12 mm (p = 0.041) and 13 mm corneal chords (p = 0.040), difference between temporal and nasal sagittal heights (T-NSH) for 12 mm (p = 0.025) and 13 mm (p = 0.034), and maximum sagittal height (MaxSH) for 12 mm (p = 0.043), with higher values in keratoconus. In bilateral cases, these differences were not found when comparing with the least severe keratoconus eye. Statistical significance for the ROC curve was only found for ITA (p = 0.025), 12-mm (p = 0.048) and 13-mm TSH (p = 0.042), and 13-mm T-NSH (p = 0.037), with cutoff values associated to limited values of sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions: The corneo-scleral profile in keratoconus presents higher levels of asymmetry compared to healthy eyes, especially in eyes with moderate and advanced stages of the disease. The diagnostic accuracy of corneo-scleral topographic data alone for keratoconus detection is limited and must be used in conjunction with other clinical parameters.
Piñero, D. P., Martínez-Abad, A., Soto-Negro, R., Ruiz-Fortes, P., Pérez-Cambrodí, R. J., Ariza-Gracia, M. A., & Carracedo, G. (2019). Differences in corneo-scleral topographic profile between healthy and keratoconus corneas. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye, 42(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2018.05.005