3.9 Article

Dependence of corneal hysteresis on non-central corneal thickness in healthy subjects

期刊

JOURNAL FRANCAIS D OPHTALMOLOGIE
卷 46, 期 8, 页码 866-872

出版社

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfo.2022.12.024

关键词

Glaucoma/diagnosis; Corneal topography; Corneal pachymetry; Diagnostic techniques; Ophthalmological; Tonometry; Ocular response analyzer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the dependence of corneal hysteresis on non-central corneal thickness, finding a significant association between corneal thickness in different circular zones and CH. The model of corneal thickness segmentation explains a portion of the variation in CH measurements.
Objective. - To evaluate the dependence of corneal hysteresis (CH) on non-central corneal thickness.Methods. - Cross-sectional study of 1561 eyes of 1561 healthy volunteers with IOP less than 21 mmHg, open angles on gonioscopy and no prior eye surgeries or local or systemic diseases. Pentacam-Scheimpflug technology was employed to segment the cornea into 6 circular zones centered on the apex (zones 1-6) and to determine the mean corneal thickness of these areas. CH was measured with ORA. Univariate and multivariate linear regression models adjusted for age and sex were created to model the dependence of CH on corneal thickness in zones 1 to 6.Results. - In the univariate linear regression models, we found that CH was dependent on mean corneal thickness of zone 1 (B = 0,004; R-2 = 0.95%; P < 0.001), zone 2 (B = 0,004; R-2 = 0.57%; P = 0.002), zone 4 (B = 0,005; R-2 = 1.50%; P < 0.001) and zone 6 (B = 0,003; R-2 = 0.92%; P < 0.001). Similar results were obtained in the multivariate model (R-2 = 3.46%; P < 0.001).Conclusion. - This study suggests a significant dependence of CH on non-central corneal thick-ness. The model of corneal thickness segmentation into circular zones centered on the corneal apex is able to explain 3.47% of the variation in CH measurements.(c) 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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

3.9
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