Loading…

Corneal epithelial thickness profile in dry-eye disease

Background/objectives To characterize and evaluate the use of corneal epithelial profile maps generated by an ultrahigh-resolution optical coherence tomography (UHR-OCT) in the diagnosis and management of dry-eye disease (DED). Subjects/methods This prospective, interventional case–control study inc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Eye (London) 2020-05, Vol.34 (5), p.915-922
Main Authors: Abou Shousha, Mohamed, Wang, Jianhua, Kontadakis, George, Feuer, William, Canto, Ana P., Hoffmann, Rodrigo, Perez, Victor L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background/objectives To characterize and evaluate the use of corneal epithelial profile maps generated by an ultrahigh-resolution optical coherence tomography (UHR-OCT) in the diagnosis and management of dry-eye disease (DED). Subjects/methods This prospective, interventional case–control study included 115 eyes of 71 subjects (52 DED and 19 controls) imaged using an UHR-OCT. Average, maximum, and minimum, range of corneal epithelial thicknesses were extracted from epithelial profile maps. Surface regularity was quantified using the range and variance of the epithelial thickness measured along a horizontal UHR-OCT scan. The variance of thickness measurements along a scan was named epithelial irregularity factor (EIF). Symptoms of 31 DED patients (55 eyes) were quantified by questionnaire and correlated to epithelial profile findings, fluorescein staining, tear breakup time, and Schirmer’s test. Twenty-one DED eyes were administered autologous serum drops and follow-up UHR-OCT images were captured. Results DED patients had a highly irregular corneal epithelial surface compared with controls. Epithelial thickness profile variance (EIF) and range were significantly higher in DED as compared with controls (5.79 vs. 0.77, p  
ISSN:0950-222X
1476-5454
DOI:10.1038/s41433-019-0592-y