International Journal of Keratoconus and Ectatic Corneal Diseases

Register      Login

VOLUME 5 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2016 ) > List of Articles


Corneal Deformation Response with Dynamic Ultra-high-speed Scheimpflug Imaging for Detecting Ectatic Corneas

Isaac Ramos, Marcella Q Salomão

Citation Information : Ramos I, Salomão MQ. Corneal Deformation Response with Dynamic Ultra-high-speed Scheimpflug Imaging for Detecting Ectatic Corneas. Int J Kerat Ect Cor Dis 2016; 5 (1):1-5.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10025-1113

Published Online: 01-12-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).



To test the ability of metrics derived from corneal response to noncontact tonometry (NCT) to distinguish between normal and ectatic cases.

Materials and methods

The prototype of CorVis ST (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) was used for assessing corneal biomechanical response using ultra-high-speed 8 mm horizontal Scheimpflug photography, taking 4,330 frames per second during NCT. Patients were stratified based on clinical data, including rotating Scheimpflug corneal tomography (Oculus Pentacam HR). Biomechanical data from one eye randomly selected of 177 patients with normal corneas (N) and from 79 patients with bilateral keratoconus (KC) were investigated. Group forme fruste keratoconus (FFKC) was composed of 20 eyes with normal topographic patterns from cases with ectasia detected in the fellow eye. Group keratoconus suspect (KCS) had 16 eyes from 16 patients with topographic patterns suspicious of KC but documented stability over 3 years and normal tomographic findings. A combination of deformation parameters using linear regression analysis (Prototype Factor 1, pF1) was created by the BrAIn (Brazilian Artificial Intelligence on Corneal Tomography and Biomechanics) study group in order to provide the best possible separation of KC and normals.


Statistical significant differences were found for N × KC for several parameters, including first and second applanation times, deformation amplitude, and maximal concavity radius (Mann–Whitney, p < 0.001). However, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were lower than 0.90. The pF1 had AUC of 0.945 (IC 0.909–0.97; sensitivity = 87.3% and specificity = 89.3%). The pF1 had statistically significant differences between the ectatic (KC and FFKC) and nonectatic groups (N and KCS) (p < 0.05, Kruskall–Wallis Test with post hoc Dunn's test).


Corneal deformation response analysis by ultra- high-speed 8 mm horizontal Scheimpflug photography provides relevant data for distinguishing ectatic and nonectatic corneas but cannot be used independently to detect KC. This data may be integrated with corneal tomography data for enhancing sensitivity and specificity for screening ectasia.

How to cite this article

Salomão MQ, Correia FF, Ramos I, Luz A, Ambrósio R Jr. Corneal Deformation Response with Dynamic Ultra-high-speed Scheimpflug Imaging for Detecting Ectatic Corneas. Int J Kerat Ect Cor Dis 2016;5(1):1-5.

PDF Share
  1. Keratoconus and related noninflammatory corneal thinning disorders. Surv Ophthalmol 1984 Jan-Feb;28(4):293-322.
  2. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol 1998 Jan-Feb; 42(4):297-319.
  3. Contemporary treatment paradigms in keratoconus. Cornea 2015 Oct;34 (Suppl 10):S16-S23.
  4. Keratoconus and ectatic corneal diseases: are we facing a new subspecialty? – Introduction. Int J Kerat Ect Cor Dis 2012;1(1):vii.
  5. Group of Panelists for the Global Delphi Panel of Keratoconus and Ectatic Diseases. Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea 2015 Apr;34(4):359-369.
  6. Iatrogenic keratectasia after LASIK in a case of forme fruste keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998 Jul;24(7):1007-1009.
  7. Ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003 Dec;29(12):2419-2429.
  8. Riboflavin/ultraviolet-A- induced collagen cross-linking for the treatment of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 2003 May;135(5):620-627.
  9. Theoretical basis, laboratory evidence, and clinical research of chemical surgery of the cornea: cross-linking. J Ophthalmol 2014;2014:890823.
  10. Detection and classification of mild irregular astigmatism in patients with good visual acuity. Surv Ophthalmol 1998 Jul-Aug;43(1):53-58.
  11. Computerized corneal topography and its importance to wavefront technology. Cornea 2001 Jul;20(5):441-454.
  12. Imaging of the cornea: topography vs tomography. J Refract Surg 2010 Nov;26(11):847-849.
  13. Detection of subclinical keratoconus using an automated decision tree classification. Am J Ophthalmol 2013 Aug;156(2):237-246.e1.
  14. Screening for ectasia risk: What are we screening for and how should we screen for it? J Refract Surg 2013 Apr;29(4):230-232.
  15. Collaborative longitudinal evaluation of keratoconus (clek) study: methods and findings to date. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2007 Sep;30(4):223-232.
  16. Corneal- thickness spatial profile and corneal-volume distribution: tomographic indices to detect keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006 Nov;32(11):1851-1859.
  17. An introduction to understanding elevation-basedtopography: howelevationdataaredisplayed– a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2009 Jan;37(1):14-29.
  18. Scheimpflug imaging for keratoconus and ectatic disease. Indian J Ophthalmol 2013 Aug;61(8):401-406.
  19. Scheimpflug imaging for laser refractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2013 Jul;24(4):310-320.
  20. Tomographic parameters for the detection of keratoconus: suggestions for screening and treatment parameters. Eye Contact Lens 2014 Nov;40(6):326-330.
  21. Bioestatísticas: conceitos fundamentais e aplicações práticas. Rev Bras Oftalmol 2014;73(1):16-22.
  22. Validation of metrics for the detection of subclinical keratoconus in a new patient collective. J Cataract Refract Surg 2014 Feb;40(2):259-268.
  23. Evaluation of total and corneal wavefront high order aberrations for the detection of forme fruste keratoconus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012 May 17;53(6):2978-2992.
  24. Ectasia susceptibility before laser vision correction. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015 Jun;41(6):1335-1336.
  25. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005 Jan;31(1):156-162.
  26. Ora waveform-derived biomechanical parameters to distinguish normal from keratoconic eyes. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2013 Mar-Apr;76(2):111-117.
  27. Best waveform score for diagnosing keratoconus. Rev Bras Oftalmol 2013 Nov/Dec;72(6):361-365.
  28. Analysis of waveform-derived ora parameters in early forms of keratoconus and normal corneas. J Refract Surg 2013 Sep;29(9):637-643.
  29. Ability of corneal biomechanical metrics and anterior segment data in the differentiation of keratoconus and healthy corneas. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2010 Jul-Aug;73(4):333-337.
  30. Corneal biomechanical metrics and anterior segment parameters in mild keratoconus. Ophthalmology 2010 Apr;117(4):673-679.
  31. Ora waveform-derived biomechanical parameters to distinguish normal from keratoconic eyes. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2013 Mar-Apr;76(2):111-117.
  32. Dynamic ultra high speed scheimpflug imaging for assessing corneal biomechanical properties. Rev Bras Oftalmol 2013;72(2):99-102.
  33. Scheimpflug camera in the quantitative assessment of reproducibility of high-speed corneal deformation during intraocular pressure measurement. J Biophotonics 2015 Nov;8(11-12):968-978.
  34. Ocular biomechanical metrics by corvis st in healthy brazilian patients. J Refract Surg 2014 Jul;30(7):468-473.
  35. Effects of age on corneal deformation by non-contact tonometry integrated with an ultra-high-speed (uhs) scheimpflug camera. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2013 Jul-Aug;76(4):229-232.
  36. Impact of chamber pressure and material properties on the deformation response of corneal models measured by dynamic ultra-high-speed scheimpflug imaging. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2013 Oct;76(5):278-281.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.