4.4 Article

Relationship of Structural Characteristics to Biomechanical Profile in Normal, Keratoconic, and Crosslinked Eyes

Journal

CORNEA
Volume 34, Issue 7, Pages 791-796

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000434

Keywords

corneal thickness; corneal curvature; corneal biomechanics

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose:To evaluate the correlation of corneal biomechanical parameters with structural characteristics in normal, keratoconic, and collagen crosslinked eyes.Methods:A prospective observational study that included 50 normal, 100 keratoconic, and 25 crosslinked eyes. All eyes were imaged using a Scheimpflug camera and an ocular response analyzer. The main outcome measures analyzed were central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal volume (CV), maximal keratometry (Kmax), corneal hysteresis (CH), and corneal resistance factor (CRF).Results:Significant differences were noted among all 3 groups of eyes for CCT, CV, Kmax, CH, and CRF values (P < 0.05 by analysis of variance). CH and CRF correlated negatively (CH, r = -0.40; CRF, r = -0.44; both P < 0.0001) with the Pentacam topographic keratoconus classification. Both CH and CRF correlated positively with CCT and CV for the normal, keratoconic, and crosslinked eyes. In contrast, significant negative correlations were observed between CH, CRF, and Kmax in the keratoconic eyes (CH, r = -0.43; CRF, r = -0.53; both P < 0.0001), whereas no association was noted for the normal and crosslinked eyes.Conclusions:CH and CRF are influenced by the corneal structure, with higher values noted in corneas with greater thickness and volume. Corneal biomechanical parameters progressively decrease as the severity of keratoconus increases. After collagen crosslinking, the relationship of the corneal curvature to the biomechanical profile is similar to normal eyes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available