Repeatability of ocular biomechanical data measurements with a Scheimpflug-based noncontact device on normal corneas.

PURPOSE To analyze the repeatability of a new device measuring ocular biomechanical properties, central corneal thickness (CCT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) and to investigate these parameters and their correlations in healthy eyes. METHODS Three consecutive measurements were performed on each eye using the CorVis ST device (Oculus Optikgeräte, Inc., Wetzler, Germany). Ten specific parameters, CCT, and IOP were measured. Biometric data were recorded with IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). RESULTS This study comprised 75 eyes of 75 healthy volunteers (mean age: 61.24 ± 15.72 years). Mean IOP was 15.02 ± 2.90 mm Hg and mean CCT was 556.33 ± 33.13 μm. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.865 for IOP and 0.970 for CCT, and coefficient of variation was 0.069 for IOP and 0.008 for CCT. ICC was 0.758 for maximum amplitude at highest concavity and 0.784 for first applanation time, and less than 0.6 for all other parameters. The device-specific data showed no significant relationship with age and axial length. Flattest and steepest keratometric values and IOP showed a significant correlation with the 10 device-specific parameters. CONCLUSIONS The CorVis ST showed high repeatability for only IOP and pachymetric values. Single measurements are not reliable for the 10 device-specific parameters. The device allows for conducting clinical examinations and screening for surgeries altering ocular biomechanical properties with some form of averaging of multiple measurements.

[1]  B Jean,et al.  Dynamic mechanical spectroscopy of the cornea for measurement of its viscoelastic properties in vitro. , 1995, German journal of ophthalmology.

[2]  L. Portney,et al.  Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice , 2015 .

[3]  Caitriona Kirwan,et al.  Corneal hysteresis and intraocular pressure measurement in children using the reichert ocular response analyzer. , 2006, American journal of ophthalmology.

[4]  G. Labiris,et al.  Evaluation of corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor after corneal cross-linking for keratoconus , 2012, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[5]  Jianhua Wang,et al.  Changes in ocular response analyzer parameters after LASIK. , 2010, Journal of refractive surgery.

[6]  K. Aggarwal,et al.  Relationship between corneal biomechanical properties, central corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure across the spectrum of glaucoma. , 2012, American journal of ophthalmology.

[7]  T. Pförtner,et al.  Improved keratoconus detection by ocular response analyzer testing after consideration of corneal thickness as a confounding factor. , 2012, Journal of refractive surgery.

[8]  E. Manche,et al.  Visually significant haze after retreatment with photorefractive keratectomy with mitomycin-C following laser in situ keratomileusis. , 2010, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[9]  Jianhua Wang,et al.  Diurnal Variation of Ocular Hysteresis, Corneal Thickness, and Intraocular Pressure , 2008, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[10]  E. Spörl,et al.  Biomechanische Zustand der Hornhaut als neuer Indikator für pathologische und strukturelle Veränderungen , 2009, Der Ophthalmologe.

[11]  F. Raiskup,et al.  Detection of biomechanical changes after corneal cross-linking using Ocular Response Analyzer software. , 2011, Journal of refractive surgery.

[12]  Mujtaba A. Qazi,et al.  Changes in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic, and noncontact tonometry. , 2007, American journal of ophthalmology.

[13]  J. Alió,et al.  Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post‐laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyes , 2007, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[14]  B. Calvo,et al.  Biomechanical property analysis after corneal collagen cross-linking in relation to ultraviolet A irradiation time , 2011, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[15]  D. Gatinel,et al.  Biomechanical properties of keratoconus suspect eyes. , 2010, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[16]  Walton Nosé,et al.  Corneal biomechanical metrics and anterior segment parameters in mild keratoconus. , 2010, Ophthalmology.

[17]  J. Jamart,et al.  Evaluation of Corneal Biomechanical Properties with the Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer , 2011, European journal of ophthalmology.

[18]  David Touboul,et al.  Correlations between corneal hysteresis, intraocular pressure, and corneal central pachymetry , 2008, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[19]  Ahmed Elsheikh,et al.  Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[20]  R. Brancato,et al.  Evaluation of photorefractive keratectomy retreatments after regressed myopic laser in situ keratomileusis. , 2001, Ophthalmology.

[21]  E. Spörl,et al.  [Biomechanical condition of the cornea as a new indicator for pathological and structural changes]. , 2009, Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft.

[22]  T. Schlote,et al.  Repeatability of Intraocular Pressure and Corneal Biomechanical Properties Measurements by the Ocular Response Analyser , 2008, Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde.

[23]  Y. Chan,et al.  Cornea biomechanical characteristics and their correlates with refractive error in Singaporean children. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[24]  I. Cunliffe,et al.  Assessment of the biomechanical properties of the cornea with the ocular response analyzer in normal and keratoconic eyes. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[25]  M. Seguí-Gómez,et al.  Reproducibility and clinical relevance of the ocular response analyzer in nonoperated eyes: corneal biomechanical and tonometric implications. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[26]  S. Greenstein,et al.  In Vivo Biomechanical Changes After Corneal Collagen Cross-linking for Keratoconus and Corneal Ectasia: 1-Year Analysis of a Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial , 2012, Cornea.

[27]  K. Bower,et al.  Corneal biomechanics following epi-LASIK. , 2011, Journal of refractive surgery.

[28]  J. Wolffsohn,et al.  Changes of Corneal Biomechanics With Keratoconus , 2012, Cornea.

[29]  K. Shimizu,et al.  Factors affecting corneal hysteresis in normal eyes , 2008, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[30]  Renato Ambrósio,et al.  Central corneal thickness and biomechanical changes after clear corneal phacoemulsification. , 2012, Journal of refractive surgery.

[31]  M. Ayala.  Corneal Hysteresis in Normal Subjects and in Patients with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma and Pseudoexfoliation Glaucoma , 2011, Ophthalmic Research.

[32]  Renato Ambrósio,et al.  Ocular response analyzer measurements in keratoconus with normal central corneal thickness compared with matched normal control eyes. , 2010, Journal of refractive surgery.

[33]  Madalena Lira,et al.  Biomechanical properties of the cornea measured by the Ocular Response Analyzer and their association with intraocular pressure and the central corneal curvature , 2009, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[34]  R. Luben,et al.  Intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanics in an adult British population: the EPIC-Norfolk eye study. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[35]  F. Raiskup,et al.  Identification of Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea: The Ocular Response Analyzer , 2012, Current eye research.

[36]  D. Luce.  Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer , 2005, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.