4.6 Article

Biomechanical Changes After In Vivo Collagen Cross-Linking With Rose Bengal-Green Light and Riboflavin-UVA

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 58, 期 3, 页码 1612-1620

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.17-21475

关键词

corneal biomechanics; cross-linking; inverse modeling; computational modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To compare corneal biomechanical properties after in vivo and ex vivo cross-linking (CXL) using rose bengal-green light (RGX) or riboflavin-UVA (UVX). METHODS. Corneas of 30 rabbits were treated in vivo by the two CXL modalities monolaterally (Group 1) or bilaterally (Group 2). Rabbits in Group 1 were euthanized 1 month after treatments and in Group 2 two months after treatment. Ex vivo CXL was also performed. Eyes were measured by Scheimpflug air puff corneal deformation imaging (Corvis ST) under constant IOP. Corneal deformation parameters were assessed. Inherent corneal biomechanical properties were estimated using inverse finite element modeling. RESULTS. Peak to peak distance decreased 16% 2 months after RGX, and 4% and 20% 1 and 2 months after UVX, respectively. The equivalent Young's modulus (E-eq) increased relative to the control during the post treatment period for both RGX and UVX. The E-eq increased by factors of 3.4 (RGX) and 1.7 (UVX) 1 month and by factors of 10.7 (RGX) and 7.3 (UVX) 2 months after treatment. However, the E-eq values for ex vivo CXL were much greater than produced in vivo. The ex vivo E-eq was greater than the 1-month in vivo values by factors of 8.1 (RGX) and 9.1 (UVX) and compared with 2 month by factors of 2.5 (RGX) and 2.1 (UVX). CONCLUSIONS. These results indicate that corneal stiffness increases after CXL, and further increases as a function of time after both RGX and UVX. Also, while biomechanical properties determined after ex vivo CXL are indicative of corneal stiffening, they may not provide entirely accurate information about the responses to CXL in vivo.

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