Abstract
PURPOSE:
To evaluate ocular biomechanical metrics given by the CorVis ST (Oculus, Inc., Berlin, Germany) in a population of healthy Brazilian patients.
METHODS:
An observational and cross-sectional study involving 1 eye randomly selected from 90 healthy patients. Studied parameters (including deformation amplitude, first applanation time, highest concavity time, second applanation time, first applanation length, second applanation length, curvature radius highest concavity, curvature radius normal, velocity in, and velocity out) derived from the CorVis ST were correlated to central corneal thickness from the Pentacam (Oculus, Inc.). Differences between data on the basis of gender were evaluated.
RESULTS:
Mean patient age was 35.80 ± 12.83 years (range: 21.07 to 78.84 years). Mean central corneal thickness was 547.50 ± 32.00 μm (range: 490 to 647 μm) and mean spherical equivalent refraction was −3.29 ± 3.69 diopters (range: −9.50 to +10.37 diopters). Mean deformation amplitude was 1.05 ± 0.08 mm (range: 0.91 to 1.26 mm). Highest concavity time was 18.38 ± 0.93 ms (range: 16.95 to 21.07 ms). Intraocular pressure was 16.43 ± 2.15 mm Hg (range: 11.50 to 21.0 mm Hg). First applanation time was 8.32 ± 0.33 ms (range: 7.53 to 9.12 ms) and second applanation time was 23.80 ± 0.44 ms (range: 22.76 to 24.95 ms). First applanation length (max) was 2.07 ± 0.38 mm (range: 1.20 to 3.10 mm) and second applanation length (max) was 2.37 ± 0.47 mm (range: 1.33 to 4.12 mm). Curvature radius highest concavity was 11.09 ± 2.06 mm (range: 7.58 to 15.98 mm) and curvature radius normal was 7.59 ± 0.67 mm (range: 6.82 to 11.02 mm). Velocity in was 0.21 ± 0.05 m/s (range: 0.16 to 0.72 m/s) and velocity out was −0.33 ± 0.07 m/s (range: −0.72 to −0.20 m/s). Studied parameters were not associated with gender.
CONCLUSIONS:
Eight of 11 ocular biomechanical metrics given by the CorVis ST were associated with central corneal thickness, but the influence of central corneal thickness on these measurements was low.
[J Refract Surg. 2014;30(7):468–473.]
- 1.Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma. 2006; 15:364–370.
10.1097/01.ijg.0000212268.42606.97 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 2.Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Villa-Collar C, Queirós A, Jorge J, Parafita MA. Pilot study on the influence of corneal biomechanical properties over the short term in response to corneal refractive therapy for myopia. Cornea. 2008; 27:421–426.
10.1097/ICO.0b013e318164e49d Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 3.Kobayashi AS, Staberg LG, Schlegel WA. Viscoelastic properties of human cornea. Experimental Mechanics. 1973; 13:497–503.
10.1007/BF02322337 Crossref, Google Scholar - 4.Schlegel WA, Lawrence C, Staberg LG. Viscoelastic response in enucIeated human eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1972; 11:593–599. Google Scholar
- 5.Hartstein J, Becker B. Research into the pathogenesis of keratoconus: a new syndrome: low ocular rigidity, contact lenses, and keratoconus. Arch Ophthalmol. 1970; 84:728–729.
10.1001/archopht.1970.00990040730005 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 6.Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:146–155.
10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.09.031 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 7.Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:156–162.
10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.10.044 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 8.Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Mantry S, Cunliffe I. Ocular response analyzer to assess hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in low tension, open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2008; 36:508–513.
10.1111/j.1442-9071.2008.01828.x Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 9.Kotecha A. What biomechanical properties of the cornea are relevant for the clinician?Surv Ophthalmol. 2007; 52:S109–S114.
10.1016/j.survophthal.2007.08.004 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 10.Fontes BM, Ambrosio R, Alonso RS, Jardim D, Velarde GC, Nosé W. Corneal biomechanical metrics in eyes with refraction of −19.00 to +9.00 D in healthy Brazilian patients. J Refract Surg. 2008; 24:941–945. Link, Google Scholar
- 11.Nemeth G, Hassan Z, Csutak A, Szalai E, Berta A, Modis L. Repeatability of ocular biomechanical data measurements with a Scheimpflug-based noncontact device on normal corneas. J Refract Surg. 2013: 29:558–563. Link, Google Scholar
- 12.Reznicek L, Muth D, Kampik A, Neubauer AS, Hirneiss C. Evaluation of a novel Scheimpflug-based non-contact tonometer in healthy subjects and patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013; 97:1410–1414.
10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303400 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 13.Hon Y, Lam AK. Corneal deformation measurement using Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry. Optom Vis Sci. 2013; 90:e1–e8.
10.1097/OPX.0b013e318279eb87 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 14.Huseynova T, Waring GO, Roberts C, Krueger RR, Tomita M. Corneal biomechanics as a function of intraocular pressure and pachymetry by dynamic infrared signal and scheimpflug imaging analysis in normal eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014; 157:885–893.
10.1016/j.ajo.2013.12.024 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 15.Roberts CJ, Mahmoud AM, Ramos I, Factors influencing corneal deformation and estimation of intraocular pressure.
Presented at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Annual Meeting ;May 1–5, 2011 ;Fort Lauderdale, Florida . Google Scholar - 16.Faria-Correia F, Ramos I, Valbon B, Luz A, Roberts CJ, Ambrosio R. Scheimpflug-based tomography and biomechanical assessment in pressure-induced stromal keratopathy. J Refract Surg. 2013; 29:356–358. Link, Google Scholar
- 17.Hong J, Xu J, Wei A, A new tonometer the Corvis ST tonometer: clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54:659–665.
10.1167/iovs.12-10984 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 18.Smedowski A, Weglarz B, Tarnawska D, Kaarniranta K, Wylegala E. Comparison of three intraocular pressure measurement methods including biomechanical properties of the corneaInvest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55:666–673.
10.1167/iovs.13-13172 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 19.Tejwani S, Joshi S, Kumar M, Does the news.
Poster presented at the Congress of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery ;September 8–12, 2012 ;Milan, Italy . Google Scholar - 20.Ambrósio RCorneal biomechanical assessment using dynamic ultra high-speed scheimpflug technology non-contact tonometry: preliminary results.
Presented at the Symposium and Congress of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery ;March 25–29, 2011 ;San Diego, California . Google Scholar
