Figure 1.
Scheme of the 3D geometric reconstruction procedure of the cornea.
Figure 2.
Analysis of the point-surface deviation for the anterior surface reconstruction of: a) a healthy cornea, b) a cornea with advanced keratoconus.
Figure 3.
Sagittal plane of the cornea: a) passing through anterior apex and the Z-axis, b) passing through posterior apex and the Z-axis.
Figure 4.
Sagittal plane of the cornea passing through the Z axis and minimum thickness points of both corneal surfaces.
Figure 5.
Volume of corneal cylinder with a determined radius: a) 2D view of the cylinder and its parameters, b) 3D view of the intersection between the solid model of the cornea and the cylinder.
Table 1.
Descriptive values (mean and 95% CI) and differences between normal and keratoconus corneal variables modeled.
Figure 6.
Schematic representation of the difference in the volume of corneal cylinder with radius 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 between a normal cornea (A–D) and a cornea with keratoconus (E–H).
Table 2.
Differences between the normal group (Figs. 7a–d) versus the keratoconus group (Figs. 7e–h) in the volume of corneal cylinder with radius 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 mm (mean and standard deviation; U-Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test).
Table 3.
Comparison between groups of the outcomes modeled; Kruskall-Wallis test (with p values) and effect size, (ES)1.
Figure 7.
ROC curve modeling the sensitivity versus 1-specificity for variables diagnosing the existence of keratoconus disease (plotted only selected variables with area under the curve over 0.7).
Table 4.
ROC analysis of sensitivity versus 1-specificity in the disease diagnosis for proposed measurements.