Evaluation of corneal deformation analyzed with a Scheimpflug based device.

PURPOSE To evaluate the correlation between corneal biomechanical and morphological data in healthy eyes. METHODS A complete clinical eye examination of naïve eyes was followed by tomographic (Pentacam, Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) and biomechanical (Corvis ST, Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) evaluation. Linear regression between central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal volume (CV) and anterior corneal curvature measured with Sim'K (SK), versus corneal deformation parameters measured with Corvis ST have been run using SPSS software version 18.0. RESULTS Seventy-six eyes of 76 healthy subjects (44 women and 32 men) with a mean age of 36.84 ± 10.74 years and a mean refractive error of -0.55 ± 1.68 D (measured as spherical equivalent) were evaluated. Corneal deformation parameters were weakly correlated with corneal morphological parameters and with spherical equivalent. Although the correlations between deformation amplitude versus SK and between SK versus Velocity of Applanation 2, were higher than the others (R(2) = 0.28 and 0.26 respectively), none of them was statistically significant (p>0.01). CONCLUSIONS According with these findings, Corvis ST seems to be able to provide an analysis of corneal deformation independent from corneal morphological characteristics. If these data will be confirmed in further studies, this device could be useful in the management and screening of eyes with corneal diseases.

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

[2]  Sunil Shah,et al.  The use of the Reichert ocular response analyser to establish the relationship between ocular hysteresis, corneal resistance factor and central corneal thickness in normal eyes. , 2006, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[3]  M. Wojtkowski,et al.  Assessment of corneal dynamics with high-speed swept source optical coherence tomography combined with an air puff system. , 2011, Optics express.

[4]  Xinghuai Sun,et al.  A new tonometer--the Corvis ST tonometer: clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers. , 2013, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  Aachal Kotecha,et al.  What biomechanical properties of the cornea are relevant for the clinician? , 2007, Survey of ophthalmology.

[6]  S. Marcos,et al.  Dynamic OCT measurement of corneal deformation by an air puff in normal and cross-linked corneas , 2012, Biomedical optics express.

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

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

[9]  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.

[10]  M. Doughty,et al.  Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. , 2000, Survey of ophthalmology.

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

[12]  N. Congdon,et al.  Central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis associated with glaucoma damage. , 2006, American journal of ophthalmology.

[13]  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.

[14]  Y. Hon,et al.  Corneal Deformation Measurement Using Scheimpflug Noncontact Tonometry , 2013, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[15]  David Touboul,et al.  Biomechanical characteristics of the ectatic cornea , 2008, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[16]  Jun Liu,et al.  Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: Quantitative analysis , 2005, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[17]  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.

[18]  C. McMonnies.  Assessing Corneal Hysteresis Using the Ocular Response Analyzer , 2012, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[19]  T. Wong,et al.  Determinants of corneal biomechanical properties in an adult Chinese population. , 2011, Ophthalmology.

[20]  J. García-Feijóo,et al.  Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[21]  A. Bayer,et al.  The Relationship Between Corneal Biomechanical Properties and Confocal Microscopy Findings in Normal and Keratoconic Eyes , 2010, Cornea.

[22]  Walton Nosé,et al.  Corneal biomechanical metrics in eyes with refraction of -19.00 to +9.00 D in healthy Brazilian patients. , 2008, Journal of refractive surgery.

[23]  N. Kara,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Cornea in Topographically Normal Relatives of Patients With Keratoconus , 2013, Cornea.