False corneal ectasia in patients referred for corneal crosslinking, topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy, and intrastromal corneal rings

Corneal pseudoectasia: a case series

OBJECTIVE

To raise awareness of conditions that can tomographically mimic corneal ectasia and describe the actions required to avoid misdiagnosis.

METHODS

We report a retrospective case series of seven patients presenting at two tertiary care centers in Israel with a presumed diagnosis of keratoconus or post-refractive ectasia. Upon further examination, the ectasia diagnosis was reconsidered and eventually ruled out.

RESULTS

Included were ten eyes of seven patients. Cases included bilateral diffuse Salzmann's nodular degeneration, ophthalmoplegia with strabismus which precluded proper fixation during the acquisition of tomography images, two cases of incorrect Pentacam parameter settings, a patient with a history of hyperopic laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) treatment in one eye and myopic LASIK in the fellow eye, a case of old post-photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) stromal haze, and a patient with posterior polymorphous corneal dystrophy.

CONCLUSIONS

Tomography patterns mimicking corneal ectasia can appear in patients without ectatic pathology. The comprehensive ophthalmologist should be aware of such cases as they may substantially alter the treatment course and prognosis of these patients.

Determining the Most Suitable Tomography-Based Parameters to Describe Progression in Keratoconus. The Retrospective Digital Computer Analysis of Keratoconus Evolution Project

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most suitable parameters to describe keratoconus progression.

METHODS

Longitudinal retrospective cohort study. Monotonicity and consistency of over 250 parameters extracted from the Pentacam tomographies (Oculus, Germany) of 743 patients was analyzed. Repeatability was calculated for 69 patients (published elsewhere). The parameters were scored based on their performance for each desired feature and a global ranking was created.

RESULTS

Overall, parameters that average a higher number of corneal points performed better than single-point parameters. Zonal keratometries on areas surrounding the maximum curvature point and the steepest front keratometry performed best, followed by front best-fit sphere and mean keratometry of both surfaces. Platform-dependent indices (e.g., Belin-Ambrósio Deviation- or index height decentration-) obtained good scores, but platform-independent LOGIK performed slightly better. Finally, although minimum radius in both surfaces worked competently, minimum pachymetry (PachyMin) performed considerably poorer.

CONCLUSIONS

We presented a list of parameters whose behavior was repeatable, monotonic and consistent, features desirable to describe change. The parameters normally used to follow keratoconus progression may not be the most adequate, as evidenced by the poor performance of PachyMin. Although calculated for a specific Scheimpflug device, most of the best-performing parameters are platform-independent variables, and results may be generalized, pending validation.

Densitometry marks delineating the affected area in keratoconus: clinical suitability of a new descriptive system based on its repeatability and reproducibility

PURPOSE

To present a descriptive system for the elliptic demarcation area seen in keratoconus densitometry maps (obtained with a Scheimpflug tomographer) and to evaluate its suitability for clinical practice.

METHODS

The subjects were 30 keratoconus patients at different stages and 20 healthy subjects. The averaged densitometry maps ('two-layers' scan, with fixed layers 120 µm and endothelium) were analysed using a system of four categories (termed 'Brightness', 'Contrast', 'Decentration' and 'Octants surrounded by a dark line') that we created to characterise the demarcation area. Four examiners (three corneal specialists and one junior resident) used the system to classify the maps. The inter-rater agreement was calculated for two subgroups: (1) clinical keratoconus patients and (2) both healthy patients and forme fruste keratoconus patients. Intra-rater agreement was also determined.

RESULTS

Inter-rater agreement on classification was higher when analysing clinical keratoconus, reaching levels of substantial agreement. Despite this, only low levels of agreement were found in 'Decentration', penalized due to the skewness in the distribution of this descriptor. Almost perfect intra-rater agreement was obtained for all descriptors in the first subgroup of clinical keratoconus, whereas the agreement was generally moderate within the second subgroup of normal and forme fruste eyes. Agreement was slightly lower with the less experienced observer. At least three observers agreed on four forme fruste keratoconus eyes presenting abnormalities in the images. The observers reported that the 'Brightness' descriptor was subjective and redundant with 'Contrast'.

CONCLUSIONS

The description of the area was repeatable and reproducible, and may be a valuable supplement when documenting clinical keratoconus stage and progression in daily practice. However, a minor learning curve was noticed and agreement was higher among the more experienced observers. Since the descriptor 'Brightness' was found to be subjective and redundant, it was excluded from the final proposed classification.