EC Ophthalmology

Aim: The study aimed to assess the topographic parameters among keratoconus subjects and to find gender based differences of these topographic parameters

Methodology: This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted at cornea department, Al-shifa trust eye hospital. Sample size were calculated using openepi software and all the subjects were enrolled using non-probability judgmental sampling technique and diagnosis along with Grading of keratoconus was done using Amsler-Krumeich classification. Topographic parameter was taken from Galilei topography. Data were entered and analyzed using statistical package Jamovi.

Results: The study examined demographic and clinical features of participants, with a focus on gender differences in keratometry (Kmax), central corneal thickness (CCT), and anterior (AEMAP) and posterior (PEMAP) elevation maps. The majority of participants were male (60%) and lived in urban areas (63.75%). Significant gender differences were found in the right eye’s AEMAP, with males having a higher mean. Other parameters, including Kmax, CCT, and PEMAP, showed no significant gender differences. In the left eye, females had a higher Kmax, but this was not statistically significant. No significant differences were found in the left eye’s CCT, AEMAP, or PEMAP. Overall, the right eye’s anterior elevation map showed notable gender variation.

Conclusion: Most keratoconus clinical parameters showed no significant gender differences. However, males had higher values in the right eye’s anterior elevation map. The impact of gender on certain corneal aspects in keratoconus warrants further investigation.

 Keywords: Central Corneal Thickness; Keratometry; Keratoconus; Topographic Characteristics

1. Galvis Virgilio., et al. “Inflammation in keratoconus”. Cornea8 (2015): e22-e23.
2. Aydin Kurna Sevda., et al. “Vision related quality of life in patients with keratoconus”. Journal of Ophthalmology1 (2014): 694542.
3. Ameerh Mohammed Ali Abu., et al. “Topographic characteristics of keratoconus among a sample of Jordanian patients”. International Journal of Ophthalmology4 (2014): 714-719.
4. Rafati Shokoofeh., et al. “Demographic profile, clinical, and topographic characteristics of keratoconus patients attending at a tertiary eye center”. Journal of Current Ophthalmology3 (2019): 268-274.
5. Hashemi Hassan and Shiva Mehravaran. “Day to day clinically relevant corneal elevation, thickness, and curvature parameters using the orbscan II scanning slit topographer and the pentacam scheimpflug imaging device”. Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology1 (2010): 44-55.
6. Bui Anh D., et al. “Keratoconus diagnosis and treatment: recent advances and future directions”. Clinical Ophthalmology 17 (2023): 2705-2718.
7. Armstrong Brian K., et al. “Screening for keratoconus in a high-risk adolescent population”. Ophthalmic Epidemiology3 (2021): 191-197.
8. Shi Yue. “Strategies for improving the early diagnosis of keratoconus”. Clinical Optometry 8 (2016): 13-21.
9. Kanclerz Piotr., et al. “Current developments in corneal topography and tomography”. Diagnostics8 (2021): 1466.
10. Alkanaan Aljoharah., et al. “Collagen fibrils and proteoglycans of peripheral and central stroma of the keratoconus cornea - ultrastructure and 3D transmission electron tomography”. Scientific Reports1 (2019): 19963.
11. Erich Götzinger., et al. “Imaging of birefringent properties of keratoconus corneas by polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography”. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 8 (2007): 3551-3558.
12. Abdul‐Maksoud. “The impact of catalase and glutathione peroxidase‐1 genetic polymorphisms on their enzyme activities among Egyptian patients with keratoconus”. The Journal of Gene Medicine8 (2020): e3192.
13. A Behndig., et al. “Superoxide Dismutase Isoenzymes in the Human Eye”. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science3 (2024): 471-475.
14. Raşit Kılıç., et al. “Systemic prolidase activity and oxidative stress in keratoconus”. Current Eye Research1 (2016): 28-33.
15. Jacinto Santodomingo-Rubido., “Keratoconus: An Updated Review”. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye3 (2022):101559.