4.4 Article

Corneal Hysteresis, Corneal Resistance Factor, and Intraocular Pressure Measurement in Patients with Scleroderma Using the Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer

期刊

CORNEA
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 628-631

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181c3306a

关键词

cornea; corneal hysteresis; corneal resistance factor; ocular response analyzer (ORA); systemic scleroderma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The Reichert ocular response analyzer (ORA) measures corneal biomechanical properties in vivo by monitoring and analyzing the corneal behavior when its structure is submitted to a force induced by an air jet. This study was designed to examine corneal biomechanical properties and intraocular pressure in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and to compare with control eyes. Patients and Methods: ORA measurements were performed on the right eyes of 29 patients with SSc (group 1) and 29 healthy people who served as the control group (group 2). Corneal hysteresis, conical resistance factor (CRF), and intraocular pressure [Goldmann correlated (IOPg) and conical compensated] were recorded with ORA. Results: Mean age of patients with SSc and control groups were 51.7 +/- 11.1 and 50.3 +/- 10.8 years, respectively. Mean (+/- SD) of the corneal hysteresis and CRF readings were 9.8 +/- 1.7 versus 9.5 +/- 1.2 mm Hg (P>0.05) and 10.0 +/- 1.5 versus 9.2 +/- 1.4 mm Hg (P<0.05), in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Mean (+/- SD) of the IOPg and intraocular pressure corneal-compensated recordings were 15.9 +/- 2.5 versus 14.1 +/- 2.4 mm Hg (P<0.05) and 16.9 +/- 3.2 versus 15.6 +/- 2.9 mm Hg (P>0.05), in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences for CRF and IOPg between the study groups. Conclusions: The mean CRF and IOPg values of patients with SSc were higher when compared with normal controls. According to the results of our study, one can conclude that corneal biomechanical properties would be changed in patients with SSc and this can be determined by CRF.

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

4.4
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