Epidemiology of Keratoconus Symposium: Keratoconus
Epidemiology of Keratoconus Symposium: Keratoconus
71]
Symposium: Keratoconus
Epidemiology of keratoconus
Nikhil S Gokhale
Prevalence of keratoconus is variable in different parts of the world. Environmental and ethnic factors and
the cohort of patients selected for such studies may explain the wide variation in the reported rates. Family
history, gender differences, asymmetry in the two eyes, association with ocular rubbing, and natural history
of disease are discussed.
Key words: Epidemiology, keratoconus, prevalence
Keratoconus Epidemiology
Keratoconus has been classically described as a
noninflammatory pathology, characterized by a conical
shape of the cornea, as a result of thinning and protrusion.
The etiopathogenesis is still under research and it may be
the final manifestation of diverse pathologic processes.
With better understanding of the disease and new imaging
modalities as well as the advent of refractive surgery, it is
being diagnosedmuch more often and much earlier than in
the past.
The reported prevalence of keratoconus varies widely
depending upon the geographic location, diagnostic criteria
used, and the cohort of patients selected. The prevalence in
studies can range from 0.3 per 100,000 in Russia[1] to 2300
per 100,000 in Central India [2] (0.0003%-2.3%). The first
populationbased study was done by Hofstetter[3] using a
Placido disc and he reported an incidence of 600 per 100,000.
The most commonly cited prevalence is 0.054% in Minnesota,
USA by Kennedy etal.,[4] who used scissors movement on
retinoscopy and keratometry for diagnosis.
In Central India, the prevalence of keratoconus was
studied based only on the anterior corneal power obtained by
keratometry. Prevalence of keratoconus defined as a corneal
refractive power 48 D was 2.3%. However, the prevalence
dropped to 0.6% using a cut off power49 D and 0.1% using
a cutoff of 50 diopter.[2]
The only other study in literature reporting such a high
prevalence was by Millodot etal., [5] in Jerusalem. This
videokeratographybased study included only welldefined
Gokhale Eye Hospital and Eyebank, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Correspondence to: Dr. Nikhil S. Gokhale, Gokhale Eye Hospital
and Eyebank, Anant building, Gokhale Road (S), Dadar West,
Mumbai400028, Maharashtra, India. Email:[email protected]
Manuscript received: 16.05.13; Revision accepted: 04.07.13
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijo.in on Sunday, October 11, 2015, IP: 36.84.2.71]
Gokhale: Epidemiology of keratoconus
August 2013 (Keratoconus)
References
1. GorskovaEN, Sevostianov EN. Epidemiology of keratoconus in
the Urals. Vestn Oftalmol 1998;114:3840.
2. JonasJB, NangiaV, MatinA, KulkarniM, BhojwaniK. Prevalence
and associations of keratoconus in rural Maharashtra in central
India: The central India Eye Medical Study. Am J Ophthalmol
2009;148:7605.
3. HofstetterHW. Akeratoscopic survey of 13,395 eyes. Am J Optom
Arch Am Acad Optom 1959;36:311.
4. Kennedy RH, Bourne WM, Dyer JA. A 48year clinical and
epidemiological study of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol
1986;101:26773.
5. Millodot M, Shneor E, Albou S, Atlani E, GordonShaag A.
Prevalence and associated factors of keratoconus in Jerusalem:
Acrosssectional study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2011;18:917.
6. AssiriAA, Yousuf BI, QuantokAJ, Murphy PJ. Incidence and
severity of keratoconus in Asir province, Saudi Arabia. Br J
Ophthalmol 2005;89:14036.
7. IhalainenA. Clinical and epidemiological features of keratoconus
genetic and external factors in the pathogenesis of the disease. Acta
Ophthalmol Scand 1986;178(Suppl):S564.
8. NielsenK, HjortdalJ, AagardNE, NielsE. Incidence and prevalence
of keratoconus in Denmark. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2007;85:8902.
383