Diagnostic Accuracy of Belin/Ambrósio Enhanced Ectasia Display in Pellucid Marginal Corneal Degeneration

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Faculty Member of Department of Optometry, Faculty of Rehabilitation, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

2 Cornea Research Center, Khatam‐Al-Anbia Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

3 PhD. Candidate, Department of Optometry, Faculty of Rehabilitation, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

4 Refractive Errors Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

5 Department of Optometry, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

6 Student Research Committee, PhD. Candidate, Department of Optometry, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Aim: Pellucid marginal degeneration (PMD) is an ectatic disorder in the corneal periphery and it is very important to detect PMD before corneal refractive surgery. The present study aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of Belin/Ambrósio Enhanced Ectasia Display for the detection of PMD.
Materials and Methods: A total of 35 individuals with a diagnosis of PMD were enrolled in the current case series study. In order to match the control and study group, when the cases with PMD enrolled in the study, healthy participants with the same age and gender were selected from the normal population. Therefore, 35 eyes of 35 healthy individuals were recruited in the study, too. All the participants were evaluated using a Pentacam (Oculus, Optikgeräte GmbH), and then 15 indices from Belin/Ambrósio Enhanced Ectasia Display were included in the analysis. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were analyzed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Belin/Ambrósio Enhanced Ectasia Display parameters.
Results: Comparative data for the outcomes of Belin/Ambrósio Enhanced Ectasia Display in both groups showed significant differences between PMD and normal groups (P < 0.05). Among the different parameters of Belin/Ambrósio Enhanced Ectasia Display, front elevation in thinnest point, deviation of back enhanced elevation, and maximum Ambrósio Related Thickness had the highest sensitivity, specificity, and area under curves [(97.14%, 100.0%, 0.999), (91.4%, 87.9%,0.998), (97.14%, 96.97%, 0.996), respectively]; however, pachymetric progression index average was the relatively poor parameter (54.29%, 90.91%, 0.663, respectively).
Conclusion: According to the results, the Belin/Ambrósio Enhanced Ectasia Display is useful for the detection of pellucid marginal corneal degeneration. Some indices showed very high sensitivity and specificity; however, the pachymetric progression index average has limitation in the detection of pellucid marginal corneal degeneration.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Krachmer JH. Pellucid marginal corneal degeneration. Arch ophthalmol (Chicago, Ill: 1960). 1978; 96(7):1217-21. ##
2. Sridhar MS, Mahesh S, Bansal AK, Nutheti R, Rao GN. Pellucid marginal corneal degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111(6):1102-7. ##
3. Sridhar MS, Mahesh S, Bansal AK, Rao GN. Superior pellucid marginal corneal degeneration. Eye. 2004; 18(4):393-9. ##
4. Basak SK, Hazra TK, Bhattacharya D, Sinha TK. Unilateral pellucid marginal degeneration. Indian J ophthalmol. 2000; 48(3):233-4. ##
5. Belin MW, Asota IM, Ambrosio R Jr, Khachikian SS. What's in a name: keratoconus, pellucid marginal degeneration, and related thinning disorders. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011; 152(2):157-162.e1. ##
6. Lee BW, Jurkunas UV, Harissi-Dagher M, Poothullil AM, Tobaigy FM, Azar DT. Ectatic disorders associated with a claw-shaped pattern on corneal topography. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007; 144(1):154-156. ##
7. Matalia H, Swarup R. Imaging modalities in keratoconus. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013; 61(8):394-400. ##
8. Sedaghat MR, Ostadi-Moghadam H, Jabbarvand M, Askarizadeh F, Momeni-Moghaddam H, Narooie-Noori F. Corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in pellucid marginal degeneration. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2018: 30(1):42-47. ##
9. Gomes JA, Tan D, Rapuano CJ, et al. Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea. 2015; 34(4):359-69. ##
10. Jinabhai A, Radhakrishnan H, O'Donnell C. Pellucid corneal marginal degeneration: A review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2011; 34(2):56-63. ##
11. Vazirani J, Basu S. Keratoconus: current perspectives. Clin ophthalmol. 2013; 7:2019-30. ##
12. Tatar MG, Aylin Kantarci F, Yildirim A, et al. Risk Factors in Post-LASIK Corneal Ectasia. J ophthalmol. 2014; 2014:204191. ##
13. Ambrósio R Jr, Belin MW. Imaging of the cornea: topography vs tomography. J Refract Surg. 2010; 26(11):847-9. ##
14. Jabbarvand M, Askarizadeh F, Sedaghat MR, Ghadimi H, Khosravi B, Amiri MA, Narooie-Noori F. Comparison between Pentacam HR and Orbscan II after Hyperopic Photorefractive Keratectomy. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2017;12(4):374-379. ##
15. Salouti R, Nowroozzadeh MH, Zamani M, Fard AH, Niknam S. Comparison of anterior and posterior elevation map measurements between 2 Scheimpflug imaging systems. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35(5):856-62. ##
16. Belin MW, Villavicencio OF, Ambrósio RR Jr. Tomographic parameters for the detection of keratoconus: suggestions for screening and treatment parameters. Eye Contact Lens. 2014; 40(6):326-30. ##
17. Muftuoglu O, Ayar O, Hurmeric V, Orucoglu F, Kılıc I. Comparison of multimetric D index with keratometric, pachymetric, and posterior elevation parameters in diagnosing subclinical keratoconus in fellow eyes of asymmetric keratoconus patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015; 41(3):557-65. ##
18. Belin MW, Ambrosio R. Scheimpflug imaging for keratoconus and ectatic disease. Indian J ophthalmol. 2013; 61(8):401-6. ##
19. Carney LG, Mainstone JC, Henderson BA. Corneal topography and myopia. A cross-sectional study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997; 38(2):311-20. ##
20. Ray WA, O'Day DM. Statistical analysis of multi-eye data in ophthalmic research. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1985; 26(8):1186-8. ##
21. McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K. A comprehensive evaluation of the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of the Oculus Pentacam HR. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52(10):7731-7. ##
22. Vianna LM, Muñoz B, Hwang FS, Gupta A, Jun AS. Variability in Oculus Pentacam tomographer measurements in patients with keratoconus. Cornea. 2015; 34(3):285-9. ##
23. Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 3: Receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta paediatr. 2007; 96(5):644-7. ##
24. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988; 44(3):837-45. ##
25.  Ambrósio R Jr, Caiado AL, Guerra FP, et al. Novel pachymetric parameters based on corneal tomography for diagnosing keratoconus. J Refract Surg. 2011; 27(10):753-8. ##
26. 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(9):1348-57. ##
27. Ruiseñor Vázquez PR, Galletti JD, Minguez N, et al. Pentacam Scheimpflug tomography findings in topographically normal patients and subclinical keratoconus cases. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014; 158(1):32-40.e2##
28. Hashemi H, Beiranvand A, Yekta A, Maleki A, Yazdani N, Khabazkhoob M. Pentacam top indices for diagnosing subclinical and definite keratoconus. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2016; 28(1):21-6. ##
The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 8, Issue 3
October 2019
Pages 122-131

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 22 December 2018
  • Revise Date: 26 January 2019
  • Accept Date: 18 February 2019
  • First Publish Date: 23 September 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics