Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 19, 2025
Full-Field Optical Coherence Microscopy for Histology-Like Analysis of Stromal Features in Corneal Grafts
Published on: October 21, 2022
Comparison of corneal biomechanical properties in healthy thin corneas with matched keratoconus eyes
Mohammad-Reza Sedaghat1, Hamed Momeni-Moghaddam, Asieh Ehsaei
1From the Eye Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran (Sedaghat); Rehabilitation Sciences Research Center, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran (Momeni-Moghaddam); Refractive Error Research Centre, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran (Ehsaei); Humanitas San Pio X Hospital, Milan, Italy (Vinciguerra); Department of Optometry, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran (Zamani); Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran (Robabi).
Purpose:
To compare corneal biomechanical parameters of normal thin corneas with matched keratoconus eyes.
Setting:
Eye Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Design:
Cross-sectional comparative study.
Methods:
Dynamic corneal response parameters of Corvis ST were compared in 61 eyes with keratoconus with 61 matched healthy thin corneas (corneal thinnest point <500 μm), while corneal thickness, biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure, and age were considered covariates. The receiving operator sensitivity curve analysis was used to determine the cutoff point with the highest sensitivity and specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) for each parameter.
Results:
All biomechanical parameters were statistically significant between the 2 groups except for the first ( P = .947) and second ( P = .582) applanation length, first ( P = .783) and second ( P = .301) applanation velocity, and deformation amplitude in the highest concavity phase ( P = .106). The highest mean difference between groups (12.89 ± 2.03 mm Hg/mm) was related to the stiffness parameter at the first applanation (SPA1). Although the Corvis biomechanical index and tomographic biomechanical index had the highest detection ability based on their AUC (0.912 and 0.959, respectively), among the standard and combined biomechanical parameters except for keratoconus screening parameters, the highest discriminative ability was related to SPA1 with AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.793, 60.66%, and 90.16%, respectively.
Conclusions:
Keratoconus corneas were significantly softer compared with healthy thin corneas of matched thickness. Optimal cutoff points close to the maximum value defined for screening parameters limit their clinical use for differentiation purposes in these particular types of cases.
