Estimation of the Central Corneal Power in Keratoconus: Theoretical and Clinical Assessment of the Error of the Keratometric Approach

Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze theoretically the errors in the central corneal power calculation in eyes with keratoconus when a keratometric index (nk) is used and to clinically confirm the errors induced by this approach. Methods: Differences (DPc) between central corneal power estimation with the classical nk (Pk) and with the Gaussian equation (PGauss c ) in eyes with keratoconus were simulated and evaluated theoretically, considering the potential range of variation of the central radius of curvature of the anterior (r1c) and posterior (r2c) corneal surfaces. Further, these differences were also studied in a clinical sample including 44 keratoconic eyes (27 patients, age range: 14–73 years). The clinical agreement between Pk and PGauss c (true net power) obtained with a Scheimpflug photography–based topographer was evaluated in such eyes. Results: For nk = 1.3375, an overestimation was observed in most cases in the theoretical simulations, with DPc ranging from an underestimation of 20.1 diopters (D) (r1c = 7.9 mm and r2c = 8.2 mm) to an overestimation of 4.3 D (r1c = 4.7 mm and r2c = 3.1 mm). Clinically, Pk always overestimated the PGauss c given by the topography system in a range between 0.5 and 2.5 D (P , 0.01). The mean clinical DPc was 1.48 D, with limits of agreement of 0.71 and 2.25 D. A very strong statistically significant correlation was found between DPc and r2c (r = 20.93, P , 0.01). Conclusions: The use of a single value for nk for the calculation of corneal power is imprecise in keratoconus and can lead to significant clinical errors.

Clinical utility of ocular residual astigmatism and topographic disparity vector indexes in subclinical and clinical keratoconus

Purpose. We aimed to characterize the distribution of the vector parameters ocular residual astigmatism (ORA) and topography disparity (TD) in a sample of clinical and subclinical keratoconus eyes, and to evaluate their diagnostic value to discriminate between these conditions and healthy corneas. Methods. This study comprised a total of 43 keratoconic eyes (27 patients, 17–73 years) (keratoconus group), 11 subclinical keratoconus eyes (eight patients, 11–54 years) (subclinical keratoconus group) and 101 healthy eyes (101 patients, 15–64 years) (control group). In all cases, a complete corneal analysis was performed using a Scheimpflug photography-based topography system. Anterior corneal topographic data was imported from it to the iASSORT software (ASSORT Pty. Ltd), which allowed the calculation of ORA and TD. Results. Mean magnitude of the ORA was 3.23 ± 2.38, 1.16 ± 0.50 and 0.79 ± 0.43 D in the keratoconus, subclinical keratoconus and control groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Mean magnitude of the TD was 9.04 ± 8.08, 2.69 ± 2.42 and 0.89 ± 0.50 D in the keratoconus, subclinical keratoconus and control groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Good diagnostic performance of ORA (cutoff point: 1.21 D, sensitivity 83.7 %, specificity 87.1 %) and TD (cutoff point: 1.64 D, sensitivity 93.3 %, specificity 92.1 %) was found for the detection of keratoconus. The diagnostic ability of these parameters for the detection of subclinical keratoconus was more limited (ORA: cutoff 1.17 D, sensitivity 60.0 %, specificity 84.2 %; TD: cutoff 1.29 D, sensitivity 80.0 %, specificity 80.2 %). Conclusion. The vector parameters ORA and TD are able to discriminate with good levels of precision between keratoconus and healthy corneas. For the detection of subclinical keratoconus, only TD seems to be valid.