Retrospective analysis evaluates epithelial thickness gradients in keratoconus, suggesting utility for early detection.
PURPOSE: To evaluate peripheral-central epithelial thickness (ET) gradients in eyes with keratoconus and regular astigmatism, and to determine their potential utility as a non-invasive biomarker for disease detection in early-stage keratoconus. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional analyzed ET with spectral-domain OCT at the cone apex and at 3 mm in the superior, temporal, nasal, and inferior directions. Epithelial thickness gradients (ΔET) were calculated as the difference between peripheral and central ET. Statistical comparisons were performed using non-parametric tests, with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 396 eyes (208 keratoconus, 188 regular astigmatism) were analyzed. Central ET was significantly reduced in KC (38.55 ± 5.42 µm) vs controls (48.78 ± 3.94 µm; p < 0.001). While peripheral thickness showed minor differences, the ET gradients (ΔET) were markedly steeper in KC across all quadrants (temporal, superior, nasal, inferior, p < 0.001). Within Stage I KC, eyes with more advanced disease exhibited steeper ΔET values, particularly in the nasal and temporal directions. Mean ΔET, demonstrated significant differences between KC (8.43 ± 4.97 µm) and controls (- 1.55 ± 1.77 µm; p < 0.001), and correlated positively with steep keratometry (r = 0.521, p < 0.001) and negatively with thinnest corneal thickness (TCT) (r = - 0.641, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ΔET is markedly steeper in keratoconus than in regular astigmatism-even in Stage I-and correlates with steep keratometry and TCT. With areas under the curves (AUCs) up to 0.976, ΔET provides a rapid, non-invasive epithelial-based biomarker for early detection and staging of keratoconus. Its utility for monitoring progression remains to be established in prospective longitudinal studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jansone-Langina et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: