4.6 Article

Changes in Corneal Biomechanics and Applanation Tonometry with Induced Corneal Swelling

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 52, 期 6, 页码 3207-3214

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-6754

关键词

-

资金

  1. UNSW

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To investigate the changes in Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) measurements with corneal edema induced by contact lenses. METHODS. Twenty-five healthy, normal subjects (age, 23 +/- 2 years) had central corneal radius (CCR), ORA, GAT, and central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements performed in both eyes before a thick, soft hydrogel contact lens was worn with eye closure for 2 hours in one eye. Measurements were repeated immediately after lens removal and every 20 minutes thereafter for the following hour. RESULTS. The experimental and control eyes behaved asymmetrically over time (repeated measures analysis of variance [RMANOVA]; P < 0.05) for all variables except CCR. GAT, ORA Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (ORAg), and ORA corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (ORAcc) showed comparable overestimations, whereas corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) responded to corneal swelling in dissimilar ways (RMANOVA; alpha = 0.05). The variation in GAT in experimental eyes could be predicted by changes in CRF (0.85 [0.23] mm Hg Delta GAT/mm Hg Delta CRF; P < 0.001), but not by CCT or CH. The covariation of both CH and CRF with CCT was influenced by the presence of corneal swelling (Eye x Delta CCT interaction, P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS. The GAT overestimation caused by small amounts of corneal swelling represents an overall increase in corneal rigidity, which is partially characterized by CRF. In contrast, CH does not appear to usefully quantify biomechanical changes induced by corneal swelling. The accuracy of ORAcc is affected by corneal swelling. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:3207-3214) DOI:10.1167/iovs.10-6754

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