4.6 Article

Optical coherence elastography by ambient pressure modulation for high-resolution strain mapping applied to patterned cross-linking

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2019.0786

关键词

non-contact; elastography; cross-linking; ambient pressure; strain map; eye

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [PZ00P2_174113]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PZ00P2_174113] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to develop a novel non-contact optical coherence elastography (OCE) approach to measure laterally and axially highly resolved corneal strain distribution at different stages of patterned corneal cross-linking (CXL). Freshly enucleated rat eyes were obtained and prepared for accelerated patterned CXL treatment with distinct ultraviolet (UV) patterns (central, peripheral, bow-tie irradiation). Each cornea was measured repeatedly, in three different conditions: (i) virgin, (ii) after epithelial debridement and 0.5% hypo-osmolar riboflavin instillation for 30 min, and (iii) after patterned CXL at 9 mW cm(-2) for 10 min. For biomechanical assessment, the corneal deformation response to an ambient pressure variation of -2 mmHg was recorded by OCE. Strain maps were obtained from phase and magnitude changes in the complex optical coherence tomography signal. Virgin corneas presented negative strain (-2.7 +/- 1.1%) in the anterior cornea and positive strain (1.9 +/- 1.3%) in the posterior cornea. A pronounced shift towards positive strains in the anterior cornea (particularly in UV-irradiated regions) was observed after CXL. Patterned UV irradiation induced localized strain alterations closely matching the geometry of the irradiation pattern. This study demonstrates the possibility of non-contact OCE by ambient pressure modulation, which could substantially improve the early diagnosis of corneal degeneration, advance research in small-animal eyes and refine in vitro mechanical investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据