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

Cornea (Impact Factor: 2.04). 01/2014; 33(3). DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000048
Source: PubMed


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.
Differences (ΔPc) between central corneal power estimation with the classical nk (Pk) and with the Gaussian equation () 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 (true net power) obtained with a Scheimpflug photography-based topographer was evaluated in such eyes.
For nk = 1.3375, an overestimation was observed in most cases in the theoretical simulations, with ΔPc ranging from an underestimation of -0.1 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 given by the topography system in a range between 0.5 and 2.5 D (P < 0.01). The mean clinical ΔPc was 1.48 D, with limits of agreement of 0.71 and 2.25 D. A very strong statistically significant correlation was found between ΔPc and r2c (r = -0.93, P < 0.01).
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.

Download full-text


Available from: David P Pinero, Jan 10, 2016
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: To evaluate the effects of posterior corneal astigmatism and the absolute flat meridian difference between anterior and posterior corneal surfaces (AMDAnt-Post) on the estimation of total corneal astigmatism using anterior corneal measurements (simulated keratometry [K]). Methods: Ninety-nine eyes of 99 healthy participants were enrolled. Anterior, posterior, and total mean corneal power, cylinder power, flat meridian, and vector components J0, and J45 measured by a dual Scheimpflug camera were analyzed. The correlation between the posterior corneal cylinder power, AMDAnt-Post, and the difference in the cylinder power between simulated K and total cornea (cylinder power differenceSimK-Tot) were evaluated. Results: The cylinder power differenceSimK-Tot was positively correlated with the posterior corneal cylinder power (rho = 0.704 and P < 0.001) and negatively correlated with AMDAnt-Post (rho = -0.717 and P < 0.001). In the multivariate linear regression analysis, anterior corneal J0 was strongly associated with the posterior corneal cylinder power and the AMDAnt-Post. When corneal J0 had a positive value, the cylinder power of simulated K tended to be larger than the total corneal cylinder power. In comparison, the opposite trend was presented in eyes with negative anterior corneal J0. When anterior corneal J0 was larger than 1.0 or smaller than -0.9, the errors from estimating the total corneal cylinder power using anterior corneal measurements tended to be larger than 0.25 D. Conclusion: Posterior corneal astigmatism should be considered for more accurate corneal astigmatism predictions, especially in eyes with anterior corneal astigmatism greater than 2.0 D of with-the-rule astigmatism or greater than 1.8 D of against-the-rule astigmatism.
    No preview · Article · Jul 2014 · Albrecht von Graæes Archiv für Ophthalmologie
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The aim of this study was to obtain the exact value of the keratometric index (nkexact) and to clinically validate a variable keratometric index (nkadj) that minimizes this error. Methods: The nkexact value was determined by obtaining differences (ΔPc) between keratometric corneal power (Pk) and Gaussian corneal power ((Equation is included in full-text article.)) equal to 0. The nkexact was defined as the value associated with an equivalent difference in the magnitude of ΔPc for extreme values of posterior corneal radius (r2c) for each anterior corneal radius value (r1c). This nkadj was considered for the calculation of the adjusted corneal power (Pkadj). Values of r1c ∈ (4.2, 8.5) mm and r2c ∈ (3.1, 8.2) mm were considered. Differences of True Net Power with (Equation is included in full-text article.), Pkadj, and Pk(1.3375) were calculated in a clinical sample of 44 eyes with keratoconus. Results: nkexact ranged from 1.3153 to 1.3396 and nkadj from 1.3190 to 1.3339 depending on the eye model analyzed. All the nkadj values adjusted perfectly to 8 linear algorithms. Differences between Pkadj and (Equation is included in full-text article.)did not exceed ±0.7 D (Diopter). Clinically, nk = 1.3375 was not valid in any case. Pkadj and True Net Power and Pk(1.3375) and Pkadj were statistically different (P < 0.01), whereas no differences were found between (Equation is included in full-text article.)and Pkadj (P > 0.01). Conclusions: The use of a single value of nk for the calculation of the total corneal power in keratoconus has been shown to be imprecise, leading to inaccuracies in the detection and classification of this corneal condition. Furthermore, our study shows the relevance of corneal thickness in corneal power calculations in keratoconus.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2014 · Cornea
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To analyze and define the possible errors that may be introduced in keratoconus classification when the keratometric corneal power is used in such classification. Materials and methods: Retrospective study including a total of 44 keratoconus eyes. A comprehensive ophthalmologic examination was performed in all cases, which included a corneal analysis with the Pentacam system (Oculus). Classical keratometric corneal power (P k), Gaussian corneal power (P c Gauss), True Net Power (TNP) (Gaussian power neglecting the corneal thickness effect), and an adjusted keratometric corneal power (P kadj) (keratometric power considering a variable keratometric index) were calculated. All cases included in the study were classified according to five different classification systems: Alió-Shabayek, Amsler-Krumeich, Rabinowitz-McDonnell, collaborative longitudinal evaluation of keratoconus (CLEK), and McMahon. Results: When P k and P kadj were compared, differences in the type of grading of keratoconus cases was found in 13.6% of eyes when the Alió-Shabayek or the Amsler-Krumeich systems were used. Likewise, grading differences were observed in 22.7% of eyes with the Rabinowitz-McDonnell and McMahon classification systems and in 31.8% of eyes with the CLEK classification system. All reclassified cases using P kadj were done in a less severe stage, indicating that the use of P k may lead to the classification of a cornea as keratoconus, being normal. In general, the results obtained using P kadj , P c Gauss or the TNP were equivalent. Differences between P kadj and P c Gauss were within ± 0.7D. Conclusion: The use of classical keratometric corneal power may lead to incorrect grading of the severity of keratoconus, with a trend to a more severe grading.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2015