These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Is keratoconus a true ectasia? An evaluation of corneal surface area.
    Author: Smolek MK, Klyce SD.
    Journal: Arch Ophthalmol; 2000 Sep; 118(9):1179-86. PubMed ID: 10980762.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Keratoconus has long been considered to be an ectasia produced by stromal stretching. Although stretching should result in increased corneal surface area, previous observations of topography during progression of keratoconus have suggested that surface area may actually be conserved. A novel objective surface area measurement based on corneal topography was tested and applied to data from actual corneas under various conditions for comparative analysis. SETTING: The LSU Eye Center clinic videokeratography archives. METHODS: TMS-1 videokeratography files (Tomey Corp, Cambridge, Mass) were obtained from 6 groups of corneas: normal (n = 29), keratoconus from mild to severe states (n = 51), topographically judged keratoconus-suspect conditions (n = 10), postoperative photorefractive keratectomy for myopia (n = 39), with-the-rule corneal astigmatism (n = 17), and keratoglobus (n = 1). Additionally, 3 different spherical test surfaces were analyzed to verify the accuracy of the process. Only maps with no missing data out to ring 29 were used. The cumulative surface area from center to periphery was determined by calculating and summing the area of individual patches along consecutive annular rings. Mean surface area with respect to mean chord radius was plotted for each corneal condition, and curve fitting was used to extend each result to a 5. 85-mm limbus. Means, SEs, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated at intervals for statistical comparisons among all groups. Computer-generated surfaces helped to evaluate the relationship between shape and surface area. RESULTS: When videokeratographic test targets were used, surface area error was less than 2%, which was deemed acceptable. Normal corneas had a mean +/- SE surface area of 120.3 +/- 2.2 mm(2), whereas all keratoconus corneas combined had a mean +/- SE surface area of 116.2 +/- 3.4 mm(2). The difference was not significant at any chord radius (analysis of variance, P<. 05). The keratoglobus cornea was found to have a surface area of 129. 9 mm(2), which was 7.98% greater than normal. An individual with progressive keratoconus exhibited no appreciable trend toward increasing surface area during a 76-month period. The corneas in the other groups resembled normal corneas in their total surface area. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of the single case of keratoglobus, corneal surface area tended to be conserved near a value of 120 mm(2) for all groups in the study, including corneas with keratoconus. Surface area is remarkably insensitive to curvature change near the vertex. Flattening seen in the periphery of corneas with keratoconus suggests that biomechanical coupling compensates for any increase in curvature occurring in the region of the cone itself. Thus, it seems that keratoconus is not a true ectasia as is keratoglobus, but rather a specialized type of warpage, at least in mild to moderate forms of the disease. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1179-1186
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]