4.1 Review

Biomechanical properties of the keratoconic cornea: a review

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPTOMETRY
卷 98, 期 1, 页码 31-38

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12211

关键词

biomechanical properties; cornea; corneal rigidity; CorVis ST; hysteresis; keratoconus; ORA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There has been a recent surge of interest in assessing corneal biomechanical properties due to potential clinical applications, particularly in the early detection of keratoconus (KC). This review discusses the effects of keratoconus on the biomechanical properties of the cornea and the current techniques used to detect these changes both in the laboratory and clinical setting. Specific structural changes occurring in the corneal stroma as part of the disease process can be linked to alterations in the viscous and elastic properties of the cornea in keratoconus. Although there are extensive ex vivo studies using techniques such as extensometry and inflation testing to analyse the biomechanical properties of the normal cornea, few have investigated the keratoconic cornea using the same methods. There are a number of ex vivo studies that confirm the effectiveness of collagen cross-linking in increasing Young's modulus in healthy corneas. Recently, research has focussed on measuring corneal biomechanical parameters in vivo using two commercially available instruments: the Ocular Response Analyser (ORA) and the CorVis ST (CST). Both instruments analyse the dynamic behaviour of the cornea, when temporarily deformed by an air puff; however, the outputs of these instruments are not directly comparable due to differences in the characteristics of the air puff and output parameters. Studies using these instruments have reported significant differences between keratoconic and healthy corneas; however, neither instrument can currently be used in isolation to reliably diagnose keratoconus. Further research analysing the outputs of these instruments may enhance their diagnostic capabilities.

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

4.1
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