Publication: Structural and biomechanical corneal differences between patients suffering from primary congenital glaucoma and healthy volunteers
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2017-02-15
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether a set of ocular morphometric and biomechanical variables are able to discriminate between healthy volunteers and patients suffering from primary congenital glaucoma (PCG).
Methods: Case-control study in which 66 patients with PCG and 94 age-matched healthy subjects were evaluated using ocular response analyser (ORA) to record corneal biomechanical properties. Topographic corneal variables were obtained using the Pentacam in both groups. To determine the ability to discern between both groups, a multivariate binary logistic model was constructed. The outcome was the diagnosis of PCG and the predictors; the corneal variables analysed along with their first-term interactions. Sensitivity and specificity of this model along with the area under the receiver characteristic operating curve (AUC of ROC) were determined.
Results: The best model to discriminate between both groups included the following predictors: corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), posterior maximum elevation (PME), anterior maximum elevation (AME) and central corneal thickness (CCT). This model, for a cut-point of 50%, presents a sensitivity of 86.67%, a specificity of 86.89% and an AUC of the ROC curve of 93.16% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88.97-97.35]. The adjusted odds ratios of those predictors which showed a significant discriminating capacity were as follows: for CH, 0.27 (95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.46); for CRF, 2.13 (95% CI: 1.33-3.40); for PME, 1.06 (95% CI: 1.01-1.12); and for AME, 1.35 (95% CI: 1.10-1.66).
Conclusion: Corneal hysteresis (CH), CRF, PME and AME are able to discern between patients with PCG and healthy controls. This fact suggests that there are structural and biomechanical differences between these groups.
Description
Received on April 10th, 2016; accepted on June 28th, 2016; version of record online on august 29, 2016; issue online february 15, 2017