4.6 Article

Computational fluid dynamics assisted characterization of parafoveal hemodynamics in normal and diabetic eyes using adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy

Journal

BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS
Volume 7, Issue 12, Pages 4958-4973

Publisher

OPTICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1364/BOE.7.004958

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Eye Institute [1R01EY0-24702-01, 2R44EY-16295-04A1]
  2. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation [2-SRA-2014-264-M-R, 17-2011-359]
  3. Eleanor Chesterman Beatson Childcare Ambassador Program Foundation Grant
  4. Massachusetts Lions Eye Research Fund
  5. UK Consortium on Mesoscale Engineering Sciences (UKCOMES) [EP/L00030X/1]
  6. EPSRC [EP/L00030X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/L00030X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of visual loss in working-age adults worldwide. Previous studies have found hemodynamic changes in the diabetic eyes, which precede clinically evident pathological alterations of the retinal microvasculature. There is a pressing need for new methods to allow greater understanding of these early hemodynamic changes that occur in DR. In this study, we propose a noninvasive method for the assessment of hemodynamics around the fovea (a region of the eye of paramount importance for vision). The proposed methodology combines adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy and computational fluid dynamics modeling. We compare results obtained with this technique with in vivo measurements of blood flow based on blood cell aggregation tracking. Our results suggest that parafoveal hemodynamics, such as capillary velocity, wall shear stress, and capillary perfusion pressure can be noninvasively and reliably characterized with this method in both healthy and diabetic retinopathy patients. (C) 2016 Optical Society of America

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available