Evidence Hub

Corneal backscatter as a biomarker for edema severity in Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy: a cross-sectional study

Maximilian Friedrich, Hyeck-Soo Son, Lasha-Giorgi Turava, Maximilian Hammer, Louise Blöck, Lizaveta Chychko, Timur Yildirim, G. Auffarth et al.

Eye and Vision, 2026

67 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) is characterized by progressive endothelial dysfunction and corneal edema. Reliable objective biomarkers for grading disease severity are currently evolving. Corneal backscatter may reflect edema-related changes in corneal transparency and could serve as an additional objective measure of FECD severity across different edema stages. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential of corneal backscatter as a biomarker for severity of FECD. Methods In this retrospective, observational, single-center cross-sectional study, 99 eyes of 67 patients with FECD were divided into three groups depending on the presence of clinical, subclinical or no corneal edema. The corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was obtained and Scheimpflug tomography was performed. Subclinical corneal edema was diagnosed if more than one of the following criteria were present in Scheimpflug tomography: loss of regular isopachs, displacement of the thinnest point of the cornea, and focal posterior corneal surface depression. Clinical corneal edema was diagnosed by slit-lamp biomicroscopy. The primary outcome was the difference in total corneal backscatter in the central 2-mm zone. Secondary analyses were the correlation of corneal backscatter to CDVA, tomographic parameters such as central corneal thickness (CCT) and thinnest corneal thickness (TCT), as well as their diagnostic accuracy and predictive potential to differentiate between edema…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 67 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free