International Journal of Keratoconus and Ectatic Corneal Diseases

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 1--2 ( January-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Prevalence of Keratoconus among Young Adults in Oman: A Cross-sectional Study Using Retinoscopy and Corneal Tomography

Rashid Al Saidi, Haithem Almahroqi, Ashoka Bandara, Devdatta Deschmukh

Keywords : Keratoconus, Retinoscopy, Tomography

Citation Information : Al Saidi R, Almahroqi H, Bandara A, Deschmukh D. Prevalence of Keratoconus among Young Adults in Oman: A Cross-sectional Study Using Retinoscopy and Corneal Tomography. Int J Kerat Ect Cor Dis 2023; 10 (1--2):20-25.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10025-1195

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 23-04-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Objective: This cross-sectional study aimed to determine the prevalence of keratoconus (KC) among young individuals in the Omani population, covering the entire country. Additionally, the severity of keratoconus was investigated after detection of the disease. Materials and methods: A total of 2750 participants were included in the study. The screening was conducted using retinoscopy (Phase 1) by well-trained optometrists, and those with a positive scissoring reflex underwent further assessment with corneal tomography to confirm the presence of keratoconus and assess its severity (Phase 2). Visual acuity and demographic data, such as age, sex, governorate, and village of residence, were collected during Phase 1, while corneal curvature parameters (K-Max, K-Mean, corneal thickness, back elevation) and keratoconus staging data were collected during Phase 2. Results: Out of the 2750 participants screened, 184 individuals between the ages of 20 and 34 were found to have a positive scissoring reflex. Among them, 96 cases were confirmed to have keratoconus in one or both eyes through corneal tomography, regardless of the severity stage. This yielded a prevalence rate of 3.49% among the study population. Among the positive keratoconus cases, 38 were males and 58 were females, with only 15 individuals aware of their keratoconus condition. Analysis of positive cases revealed the highest prevalence in the Al Batinah North governorate. Severity analysis based on topographic keratoconus classification displayed five eyes in stage 3–4, indicating advanced disease. Additionally, 75 cases had corneal parameters suspected of keratoconus on corneal tomography but did not meet the diagnostic criteria (based on the KSS score, This system grades the severity of keratoconus from 0 (suspect) to 5 (severe) based on two corneal topographic indices (i.e., anterior corneal higher order aberration RMS error and mean central keratometry), and 13 cases were confirmed as false-positive scissoring reflex. Conclusion: This study revealed a significant prevalence of keratoconus among young individuals in the Omani population. Compared with similar studies conducted in other parts of the world and neighboring countries, Oman appears to have a higher prevalence. Notably, a significant proportion of cases were already in advanced stages upon detection. Certain regions in Oman showed a higher prevalence, suggesting a potential relationship with geographic location and environmental factors. These findings warrant further investigation into the causative factors of keratoconus among the Omani population in the planned Phase 3 of the study. Close follow-up is recommended for cases suspected of having keratoconus but not meeting diagnostic criteria. Additionally, the lack of awareness among individuals with keratoconus, even in advanced stages, highlights the importance of population-based educational programs to promote early detection and intervention, ultimately preventing permanent visual disability.

  1. Santodomingo-Rubido J, Carracedo G, Suzaki A, et al. Keratoconus: An updated review. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 2022;45(3):101559. DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2021.101559.
  2. Kennedy RH, Bourne WM, Dyer JA. A 48-year clinical and epidemiologic study of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 1986;101(3):267–273. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9394(86)90817-2.
  3. Belin MW, Jang HS, Borgstrom M. Keratoconus: Diagnosis and staging. Cornea 2022;41(1):1–11. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002781.
  4. Mohammad-Rabei H, Ramin S, Lotfi S, et al. Risk factors associated with keratoconus in an Iranian population. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2023;18(1):15–23. DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v18i1.12721.
  5. Deshmukh R, Ong ZZ, Rampat R, et al. Management of keratoconus: An updated review. Front Med (Lausanne) 2023;10:1212314. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1212314.
  6. Al-Muammar AM, Kalantan H, Azad TA, et al. Analysis of the SOD1 gene in keratoconus patients from Saudi Arabia. Ophthalmic Genetics 2015. DOI: 10.1155/2015/604508.
  7. Hashemi H, Heydarian S, Hooshmand E, et al. The prevalence and risk factors for keratoconus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cornea 2020;39(2):263–270. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002150.
  8. Gorskova EN, Sevost'ianov EN. [Epidemiology of keratoconus in the Urals]. Vestn Oftalmol [Internet] 1998;114(4):38–40. PMID: 9771088.
  9. Waked N, Fayad AM, Fadlallah A, et al. [Keratoconus screening in a Lebanese students’ population]. J Fr Ophtalmol 2012;35(1):23–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfo.2011.03.016.
  10. Jonas JB, Nangia V, Matin A, et al. Prevalence and associations of keratoconus in rural Maharashtra in Central India: The Central India eye and medical study. Am J Ophthalmol 2009;148(5):760–765. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.06.024.
  11. Barbara R, Gordon-Shaag A, Millodot M, et al. Prevalence of keratoconus among Young Arab students in Israel. Int J Keratoconus Ectatic Corneal Dis 2014;3(1)9–14. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10025-1070.
  12. Georgiou T, Funnell CL, Cassels-Brown A, et al. Influence of ethnic origin on the incidence of keratoconus and associated atopic disease in Asians and white patients. Eye 2004;18(4):379–383. DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6700652.
  13. Millodot M, Shneor E, Albou S, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of keratoconus in Jerusalem: A cross-sectional study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2011;18(2):91–97. DOI: 10.3109/09286586.2011.560747.
  14. Hashemi H, Khabazkhoob M, Fotouhi A. Topographic keratoconus is not rare in an Iranian population: The Tehran eye study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2013;20(6):385–391. DOI: 10.3109/09286586.2013.848458.
  15. Torres Netto EA, Al-Otaibi WM, Hafezi NL, et al. Prevalence of keratoconus in paediatric patients in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Br J Ophthalmol 2018;102(10):1436–1441. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311391.
  16. Larkin DFP, Chowdhury K, Burr JM, et al. Effect of corneal cross-linking versus standard care on keratoconus progression in young patients. Ophthalmology 2021;128(11):1516–1526. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.04.019.
  17. Hersh PS, Stulting RD, Muller D, et al. United States multicenter clinical trial of corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus treatment. Ophthalmology 2017;124(10):1475–1484. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.05.036.
  18. Valdez-García JE, Sepúlveda R, Salazar-Martínez JJ, et al. Prevalence of keratoconus in an adolescent population. Rev Mex Oftalmol 2014;88(3):95–98. DOI:
  19. Al-Mahrouqi H, Oraba SB, Al-Habsi S, et al. Retinoscopy as a screening tool for keratoconus. Cornea 2019;38(4):442–445. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001843.
  20. Moshirfar M, Motlagh MN, Murri MS, et al. Galilei corneal tomography for screening of refractive surgery candidates: A review of the literature, Part II. Med hypothesis, Discov Innov Ophthalmol J 2019;8(3):204–218. PMID: 31598521.
  21. Crawford AZ, Patel DV, Mcghee CNJ. Comparison and repeatability of keratometric and corneal power measurements obtained by Orbscan II, Pentacam, and Galilei corneal tomography systems. Am J Ophthalmol 2013;156(1):53–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.01.029.
  22. Alzahrani K, Mofty H, Lin EYC, et al. Corneal imaging and densitometry measurements in juvenile and adult keratoconus patients to evaluate disease progression and treatment effects after corneal cross-linking. Clin Optom 2019;11:173–180. DOI: 10.2147/OPTO.S226000.
  23. Mohamed El-Hofy E, Abdul-Rahman Othman A, El-Din Abd El-Monem Ziada H. Pentacam corneal imaging in patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis. Al-Azhar Med J 2022;2022;51(3):1483–1494. DOI: 10.21608/amj.2022.240676.
  24. Herber R, Pillunat LE, Raiskup F. Development of a classification system based on corneal biomechanical properties using artificial intelligence predicting keratoconus severity. Eye Vis 2021;8(1):21. DOI: 10.1186/s40662-021-00244-4.
  25. Spira C, Grigoryan A, Szentmáry N, et al. Comparison of the specificity and sensitivity of various instrument-guided keratoconus indices and classifiers. Ophthalmologe 2015;112(4):353–358. DOI: 10.1007/s00347-014-3135-8.
  26. Lopes BT, Ramos IC, Dawson DG, et al. Detection of ectatic corneal diseases based on pentacam. Z Med Phys 2016;26(2):136–142. DOI: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2015.11.001.
  27. Hashemi H, Khabazkhoob M, Pakzad R, et al. Pentacam accuracy in discriminating keratoconus from normal corneas: A diagnostic evaluation study. Eye Contact Lens Sci Clin Pract 2019;45(1):46–50. DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000531.
  28. Godefrooij DA, de Wit GA, Uiterwaal CS, et al. Age-specific incidence and prevalence of keratoconus: A nationwide registration study. Am J Ophthalmol 2017;175:169–172. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.12.015.
  29. Bak-Nielsen S, Ramlau-Hansen CH, Ivarsen A, et al. Incidence and prevalence of keratoconus in Denmark – an update. Acta Ophthalmol 2019;97(8):752–755. DOI: 10.1111/aos.14082.
  30. Al-Mahrouqi HH, Al-Shamli N, Mohan NR, et al. Clinical Profile of Omani Keratoconus Patients: An Experience from a tertiary referral centre in Muscat. Oman J Ophthalmol [Internet] 2018;11(3):259–264. DOI: 10.4103/ojo.OJO_203_2017.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.