Ocular biomechanical metrics by CorVis ST in healthy Brazilian patients.

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.

[1]  B. Becker,et al.  Research into the pathogenesis of keratoconus. A new syndrome: low ocular rigidity, contact lenses, and keratoconus. , 1970, Archives of ophthalmology.

[2]  W A Schlegel,et al.  Viscoelastic response in the enucleated human eye. , 1972, Investigative ophthalmology.

[3]  Albert S. Kobayashi,et al.  Viscoelastic properties of human cornea , 1973 .

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

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

[6]  Felipe A. Medeiros,et al.  Evaluation of the Influence of Corneal Biomechanical Properties on Intraocular Pressure Measurements Using the Ocular Response Analyzer , 2006, Journal of glaucoma.

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

[8]  C. Villa-Collar,et al.  Pilot Study on the Influence of Corneal Biomechanical Properties Over the Short Term in Response to Corneal Refractive Therapy for Myopia , 2008, Cornea.

[9]  Sunil Shah,et al.  Ocular response analyser to assess hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in low tension, open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension , 2008, Clinical & experimental ophthalmology.

[10]  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.

[11]  Renato Ambrósio,et al.  Factors Influencing Corneal Deformation and Estimation of Intraocular Pressure , 2011 .

[12]  Adrienne Csutak,et al.  Repeatability of ocular biomechanical data measurements with a Scheimpflug-based noncontact device on normal corneas. , 2013, Journal of refractive surgery.

[13]  Christoph Hirneiss,et al.  Evaluation of a novel Scheimpflug-based non-contact tonometer in healthy subjects and patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma , 2013, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

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

[16]  Renato Ambrósio,et al.  Scheimpflug-based tomography and biomechanical assessment in pressure-induced stromal keratopathy. , 2013, Journal of refractive surgery.

[17]  Edward Wylegala,et al.  Comparison of three intraocular pressure measurement methods including biomechanical properties of the cornea. , 2014, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[18]  R. Krueger,et al.  Corneal biomechanics as a function of intraocular pressure and pachymetry by dynamic infrared signal and Scheimpflug imaging analysis in normal eyes. , 2014, American journal of ophthalmology.