4.6 Article

Nondestructive quantification of analyte diffusion in cornea and sclera using optical coherence tomography

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 2726-2733

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-1331

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. Noninvasive functional imaging, monitoring, and quantification of analytes transport in epithelial ocular tissues are extremely important for therapy and diagnostics, of many eye diseases. In this study the authors investigated the capability of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for noninvasive monitoring and quantification of diffusion of different analytes in sclera and cornea of rabbit eyes. METHODS. A portable time-domain OCT system with wavelength of 1310 +/- 15 nm, output power of 3.5 mW, and resolution of 25 gm was used in this study. Diffusion of different analytes was monitored and quantified in rabbit cornea and sclera of whole eyeballs. Diffusion of water, metronidazole (0.5%), dexamethasone (0.2%), ciprofloxacin (0.3%), mannitol (20%), and glucose solution (20%) were examined, and their permeability coefficients were calculated by using OCT signal slope and depth-resolved amplitude methods. RESULTS. Permeability coefficients were calculated as a function of time and tissue depth. For instance, mannitol was found to have a permeability coefficient of (8.99 +/- 1.43) x 10(-6) cm/s in cornea and (6.18 +/- 1.08) x 10(-6) cm/s in sclera. The permeability coefficient of drugs with small concentrations (where water was the major solvent) was found to be in the range of that of water in the same tissue type, whereas permeability coefficients of higher concentrated solutions varied significantly. CONCLUSIONS. Results suggest that the OCT technique might be a powerful tool for noninvasive diffusion studies of different analytes in ocular tissues. However, additional methods of OCT signal acquisition and processing are required to study the diffusion of agents of small concentrations.

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