Open Access
Subscription or Fee Access
https://doi.org/10.33791/2222-4408-2023-4-322-330
The article presents data on modern methods of diagnosis and monitoring of keratoconus. The main pathognomonic signs are described according to routine research methods: biomicroscopy, viso-, autoref- and keratometry, as well as special research methods such as keratotopography, keratotomography, optical coherence tomography, aberrometry, confocal microscopy and the study of biomechanical properties of the cornea. The “gold standard” in the diagnosis of subclinical keratoconus, today, is scanning keratotomography on a Scheimpfl ug camera with the Belin-Ambrósio enhanced ectasia protocol embedded in the device
Veronika V. Averich, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Ophthalmologist, Junior Researcher of Department of Pathology of Optical Medes of the Eye, Senior Researcher of the Refractive Disorders Correction Department
11 a, b, Rossolimo Str., Moscow, 119021
63b, bld. 4, Mikhalkovskaya Str., Moscow, 125438
1. Avetisov S.E. Keratoconus: modern approaches to pathogenetic studies, diagnosis, optical correction and treatment. Bulletin of Ophthalmology. 2014;130(6):37–43. (In Russ.)
2. Averich V.V., Egorova G.B. Ocular aberrations in keratoconus. Russian Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology. 2022;22(3):168– 174. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32364/2311-7729-2022-22-3-168-174
3. Kennedy R.H., Bourne W.M., Dyer L.A. A 48-year clinical and epidemiologic study of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986;101(3):267–273.
4. Avetisov S.E., Novikov I.A., Pateiuk L.S. Keratoconus: etiological factors and accompanying manifestations. Bulletin of Ophthalmology. 2014;130(4):110–116. (In Russ.)
5. Abugova T.D., Morozov S.G., Blosfeld V.B. New aspects of the keratoconus problem. Eye. 2004;1:8–13. (In Russ.)
6. Tereshchenko A.V., Demyanchenko S.K., Timofeev M.A. Keratoconus (review). Saratov Journal of Medical Scientifi c Research. 2020;16(1):293–297.
7. Avetisov S.E., Averich V.V., Pateyuk L.S. Keratoconus: main lines of research. Bulletin of Ophthalmology. 2023;139(3.2):11–20. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/oftalma202313903211
8. Binder P.S., Lindstrom R.L., Stulting R.D. et al. Keratoconus and corneal ectasia after LASIK. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2005;21(6):749–752. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081-597X-20051101-15
9. Zadnik K., Barr J.T., Gordon M.O., Edrington T.B. Biomicroscopic signs and disease severity in keratoconus. Cornea. 1996;15(2):139–146.
10. Egorova G.B., Rogova A.Ya. Keratoconus. Diagnostic and monitoring methods. Bulletin of Ophthalmology. 2013;129(1):61– 66. (In Russ.)
11. Kasparova E.A. Modern ideas about the etiology and pathogenesis of keratoconus. Bulletin of Ophthalmology. 2002;118(3):50–53. (In Russ.)
12. Rabinowitz Y.S. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol. 1998;42(4):297– 319. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6257(97)00119-7
13. Sterker I., Wiedemann P. Corneal topography of the partner eye in unilateral keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 1998;95(5):317– 321.
14. Rabinowitz Y.S. Videokeratographic indiced to aid in screening for keratoconus. J Refract Surg. 1995;11:371–379.
15. Rabinowitz Y.S. Tangential vs sagittal videokeratographs
16. in the «early» detection of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;122(6):887–889.
17. Belin M.W., Ambrosio R.J. Scheimpfl ug imaging for keratoconus and ectatic disease. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013;61(8):401– 406. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.116059
18. Reddy J.C., Rapuano C.J., Cater J.R. et al. Comparative evaluation of dual Scheimpfl ug imaging parameters in keratoconus, early keratoconus, and normal eyes. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery. 2014;40(4):582–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.08.061
19. Ambrósio R. Jr, Lopes B.T., Faria-Correia F. et al. Integration of Scheimpfl ug-based corneal tomography and biomechanical assessments for enhancing ectasia detection. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2017;33(7):434–443. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20170426-02
20. Holladay J.T. Detecting forme fruste keratoconus with the pentacam. Suppl. to Cataract Refract Surg Today. 2008;11–12.
21. Kudryashova E.V., Gavrilyuk V.N., Kulikov A.N. et al. Epithelial
22. mapping as a classifi cation approach to the staging of keratoconus. Modern Technologies in Ophthalmology. 2018;5:289– 290. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25276/2312-4911-2018-5-289-290
23. Egorova G.V., Bobrovskikh N.V., Zueva Yu.S. Optical aberrations of the eye and the possibility of their compensation using contact lenses and surgical interventions in primary ametropia and keratoconus. Bulletin of Ophthalmology. 2007;5:47–51. (In Russ.)
24. Bubnova I.A., Averich V.V., Belousova E.V. Infl uence of corneal biomechanical properties on IOP indices in patients with keratoconus. The EYE GLAZ. 2019;4:15–19. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33791/2222-4408-2019-4-15-19.
25. Kataria P., Padmanabhan P., Gopalakrishnan A. et al. Accuracy of Scheimpfl ug-derived corneal biomechanical and tomographic indices for detecting subclinical and mild keratectasia in a South Asian population. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery. 2019;45(3):328–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.10.030
26. Avetisov S.E., Egorova G.B., Fedorov A.A., Bobrovskikh N.V. Confocal microscopy of the cornea. Communication 2. Morphological changes in keratoconus. Bulletin of Ophthalmology. 2008;124(3):6–10. (In Russ.)
27. Bubnova I.A., Surnina Z.V., Averich V.V., Sarkisova K.G. The effects of corneal collagen cross-linking on the corneal structure in keratoconus. Bulletin of Ophthalmology. 2020;136(5):268–276. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/oftalma2020136052268
Averich V.V. Modern methods of diagnosis and monitoring of keratoconus. The EYE GLAZ. 2023;25(4):322-330. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33791/2222-4408-2023-4-322-330
Email this article (Login required)
Email the author (Login required) Suite 1N, Deguninskaya St., Moscow, 127486, Russian Federation
“Academy of Medical Optics and Optometry” Non-State Educational
Private Institution of Continuing Professional Education
tel.: +7 (495) 602-05-52, ext. 1505
E-mail: glaz@ramoo.ru
