Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate tomographic and topographic parameters in subclinical and clinical keratoconus eyes by comparing them with normal eyes in a young Caucasian population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 88 normal eyes (control group), bilateral data from the preclinical stage of 24 progressive keratoconus eyes (bilateral subclinical keratoconus group), 40 fellow eyes of patients with unilateral keratoconus (fellow eyes group) and 97 eyes with mild keratoconus (clinical keratoconus group). Topographic and tomographic data, data from enhanced elevation maps and keratoconus indices were measured in all study eyes using Scheimpflug tomography. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to assess individual parameters to discriminate eyes of patients with subclinical and clinical keratoconus from control eyes. The sensitivity and specificity of the main effective parameters were evaluated and optimal cut-off points were identified to differentiate subclinical keratoconus and keratoconus from normal corneas. RESULTS: Comparison of all subclinical and clinical keratoconus eyes from the normal group revealed significant differences in most diagnostic parameters. The ROC curve analysis showed high overall predictive accuracy of several Pentacam parameters (overall D value, anterior and posterior elevations and difference elevations, pachymetry progression index, index of surface variance, index of height decentration and keratoconus index) in discriminating ectatic corneas from normal ones. These outcomes were proportionally less pronounced in all subclinical keratoconus eyes than in the clinical keratoconus eyes. Pachymetric readings were progressively lower in the bilateral subclinical keratoconus eyes and sensitivity and specificity of the analyzed tomographic and topographic parameters were higher than the fellow eyes group when differentiating subclinical keratoconus from healthy corneas. CONCLUSION: Scheimpflug tomography parameters such as D value, elevation parameters, progression index and several surface indices can effectively differentiate keratoconus from normal corneas in a Caucasian population. Nevertheless, a combination of different data is required to distinguish subclinical keratoconus.