Combined Scheimpflug-Derived Tomographic and Biomechanical Assessment Detection: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Purpose: Keratoconus is the most common corneal ectatic disease, characterized by progressive and bilateral thinning of the cornea leading to visual loss. Early diagnosis is important, particularly in preoperative screening, and the utilization of another imaging modality remains crucial. This study aimed to explore the combination of corneal biomechanical tomographic assessment derived from Scheimpflug in diagnosing subclinical keratoconus. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Clinical Key, and EBSCO. Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool in RevMan 5.4. The primary outcome measures included the Belin-Ambrosio enhanced ectasia total deviation index (BAD-D), Stiffness Parameter at First Applanation (SPA-1), Tomographic & Biomechanical Index (TBI), and Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI). Diagnostic accuracy was categorized based on the area under the curve (AUC) as low (AUC < 0.7), moderate (0.7 ≤ AUC < 0.9), or high (AUC ≥ 0.9). Results: Twelve studies involving 3483 eyes were included BAD-D and CBI demonstrated low to moderate AUC, while TBI demonstrated moderate to high AUC. According to the QUADAS-2, common methodological limitations included inappropriate reference standards, unclear patient selection, and inconsistent exclusion criteria. Limitations include numerous issues with methodological and findings reporting, thus a meta-analysis was not conducted. Conclusion: Scheimpflug-based corneal tomographic and biomechanical assessment shows promise as an adjunctive tool for detecting subclinical keratoconus. Among the indices, TBI appears to provide the highest diagnostic performance. However, further high-quality, longitudinal studies are required to validate these findings and to develop standardized diagnostic criteria.
Full text article
References
1. Song P, Ren S, Liu Y, Li P, Zeng Q. Detection of subclinical keratoconus using a novel combined tomographic and biomechanical model based on an automated decision tree. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):1-9. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-09160-6
2. Godefrooij DA, de Wit GA, Uiterwaal CS, Imhof SM, Wisse RPL. Age-specific Incidence and Prevalence of Keratoconus: A Nationwide Registration Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;175:169-172. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2016.12.015
3. Koh S, Ambrósio R, Inoue R, Maeda N, Miki A, Nishida K. Detection of subclinical corneal ectasia using corneal tomographic and biomechanical assessments in a Japanese population. J Refract Surg. 2019;35(6):383-390. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20190417-01
4. Shajari M, Jaffary I, Herrmann K, Grunwald C, Steinwender G, Mayer WJ, et al. Early tomographic changes in the eyes of patients with keratoconus. J Refract Surg. 2018;34(4):254-259. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20180124-01
5. Ambrosio R, Nogueira LP, Caldas DL, Fontes BM, Luz A, Belin MW. Evaluation of Corneal Shape and Biomechanics Before LASIK. Int Ophthalmol. 2011;51(2):11-39.
6. Roberts CJ, Dupps WJ. Biomechanics of corneal ectasia and biomechanical treatments. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40(6):991-998. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.04.013
7. Ambrósio R, Lopes BT, Faria-Correia F, Salomão MQ, Bühren J, Roberts CJ et al. Integration of scheimpflug-based corneal tomography and biomechanical assessments for enhancing ectasia detection. J Refract Surg. 2017;33(7):434-443. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20170426-02
8. Sedaghat MR, Momeni-Moghaddam H, Ambrósio R, Heidari RH, Maddah N, Danesh Z, et al. Diagnostic ability of corneal shape and biomechanical parameters for detecting frank keratoconus. Cornea. 2018;37(8):1025-1034. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000001639
9. Kataria P, Padmanabhan P, Gopalakrishnan A, Padmanaban V, Mahadik S, Ambrósio R. Accuracy of Scheimpflug-derived corneal biomechanical and tomographic indices for detecting subclinical and mild keratectasia in a South Asian population. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45(3):328-336. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.10.030
10. Chan TCY, Meng Wang Y, Yu M, Jhanji V. Comparison of corneal tomography and a new combined tomographic biomechanical index in subclinical keratoconus. J Refract Surg. 2018;34(9):616-621. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20180705-02
11. Ferreira-Mendes J, Lopes BT, Faria-Correia F, Salomão MQ, Rodrigues-Barros S, Ambrósio R. Enhanced Ectasia Detection Using Corneal Tomography and Biomechanics. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;197:7-16. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2018.08.054
12. Al Bdour M, Sabbagh HM, Jammal HM. Multi-modal imaging for the detection of early keratoconus: a narrative review. Eye Vis. 2024;11(1):1-15. doi:10.1186/s40662-024-00386-1
13. Liu Y, Zhang Y, Chen Y. Application of a scheimpflug-based biomechanical analyser and tomography in the early detection of subclinical keratoconus in chinese patients. BMC Ophthalmol. 2021;21(1):1-10. doi:10.1186/s12886-021-02102-2
14. Guo LL, Tian L, Cao K, Li YX, Li N, Yang WQ ,et al. Comparison of the morphological and biomechanical characteristics of keratoconus, forme fruste keratoconus, and normal corneas. Semin Ophthalmol. 2021;36(8):671-678. doi:10.1080/08820538.2021.1896752
15. Zhang H, Tian L, Guo L, Qin X, Zhang D, Li L, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of corneas from normal, forme fruste keratoconus and clinical keratoconus patients using morphological and biomechanical properties. Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41(4):1247-1259. doi:10.1007/s10792-020-01679-9
16. Tian L, Qin X, Zhang H, Zhang D, Guo LL, Zhang HX, et al. A Potential Screening Index of Corneal Biomechanics in Healthy Subjects, Forme Fruste Keratoconus Patients and Clinical Keratoconus Patients. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9(December):1-10. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2021.766605
17. Koc M, Aydemir E, Tekin K, Inanc M, Kosekahya P, Kiziltoprak H. Biomechanical analysis of subclinical keratoconus with normal topographic, topometric, and tomographic findings. J Refract Surg. 2019;35(4):247-252. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20190226-01
18. Steinberg J, Siebert M, Katz T, Frings A, Mehlan J, Druchkiv V, et al. Tomographic and biomechanical scheimpflug imaging for keratoconus characterization: A validation of current indices. J Refract Surg. 2018;34(12):840-847. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20181012-01
19. Bae GH, Kim JR, Kim CH, Lim DH, Chung ES, Chung TY. Corneal topographic and tomographic analysis of fellow eyes in unilateral keratoconus patients using pentacam. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(1):103-109.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.08.014
20. Consejo A, Gławdecka K, Karnowski K, Solarski J, Rozema JJ, Wojtkowski M, et al. Corneal Properties of Keratoconus Based on Scheimpflug Light Intensity Distribution. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019;60(8):3197-3203. doi:10.1167/iovs.19-26963
21. Gomes JAP, Tan D, Rapuano CJ, Belin MW, Ambrósio R, Guell JL, et al. Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea. 2015;34(4):359-369. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000000408
22. Imbornoni LM, Padmanabhan P, Belin MW, Deepa M. Long-Term Tomographic Evaluation of Unilateral Keratoconus.Cornea. 2017;0(0):1-9. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001295
Authors
Copyright (c) 2026 Yuniar Sarah Ningtiyas, Amalia Azrina, Farida Moenir, Sahata P.H. Napitupulu, Dini Dharmawidiarini

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

