The appilication progress of evaluation parameters for the corneal biomechanics

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-2007.2023.04.009

Abstract

Abstract:

The biomechanical assessment of the cornea can be used for keratoconus screening, its diagnosis, preoperative evaluation of corneal refractive surgery, selection of auxiliary surgical modalities, and measurement of the biomechanically-corrected intra-ocular pressure in the treatment of glaucoma. The progress on the appilication of corneal biomechanical assessment parameters commonly used in clinical practice, including Corvis biomechanical index, tomographic-biomechanical index and stress-strain index were focused in this paper.

Key words: Corneal biomechanics, Corvis biomechanical index, Tomographic-biomechanical index, Stress-strain index

Mengfan Cui, Rui He, Xiaona Li, Weiyi Chen, Yaowen Song. The appilication progress of evaluation parameters for the corneal biomechanics[J]. Chinese Journal of Ophthalmologic Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2023, 13(04): 236-240.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhykyxzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-2007.2023.04.009

https://zhykyxzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2023/V13/I04/236

Figures/Tables 1

References 52

[1]	Piňero DP, Alcón N. Corneal biomechanics: a review[J]. Clin Exp Optom, 2015, 98(2): 107－116.
[2]	Ambrósio R , Correia FF, Lopes B, et al. Corneal biomechanics in ectatic diseases: refractive surgery implications[J]. Open Ophthalmol J, 2017, 11: 176－193.
[3]	Chen KJ, Joda A, Vinciguerra R, et al. Clinical evaluation of a new correction algorithm for dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer tonometry before and after laser in situ keratomileusis and small－incision lenticule extraction[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2018, 44(5): 581－588.
[4]	SalomãoMQ, Hoffling－Lima A, Lopes BT, et al. Recent developments in keratoconus diagnosis[J]. 2018, 13(6): 329－341.
[5]	Vellara HR, Patel DV. Biomechanical properties of the keratoconic cornea: a review[J]. Clin Exp Optom, 2015, 98(1): 31－38.
[6]	Zhang M, Zhang F, Li Y, et al. Early diagnosis of keratoconus in Chinese myopic eyes by combining Corvis ST with pentacam[J]. Current Eye Res, 2020, 45(2): 118－123.
[7]	Ortiz D, Piňero D, Shabayek MH, et al. Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post－laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyes[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2007, 33(8): 1371－1375.
[8]	Ramirez－Garcia MA, Sloan SR, Nidenberg B, et al. Depth－dependent out－of－plane young's modulus of the human cornea[J]. Curr eye research, 2018, 43(5): 595－604.
[9]	De－Stefano VS, Dupps WJ. Biomechanical diagnostics of the cornea[J]. Int Ophthalmol Clin, 2017, 57(3): 75－86.
[10]	Eliasy A, Chen KJ, Vinciguerra R, et al. Determination of corneal biomechanical behavior in－vivo for healthy eyes using CorVis ST tonometry: Stress－Strain Index[J]. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2019, 7: 105.
[11]	Kaushik S, Pandav SS. Ocular response analyzer[J]. J Curr Glaucoma Pract, 2012, 6(1): 17－19.
[12]	Sedaghat MR, Momeni－Moghaddam H, Heravian J, et al. Detection ability of corneal biomechanical parameters for early diagnosis of ectasia[J]. Eye (London, England), 2023, 37(8): 1665－1672.
[13]	Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis[J]. Invest Ophth Vis Sci, 2003, 44(9): 3790－3794.
[14]	Qian CX, Duperré J, Hassanaly S, et al. Pre versus post－dilation changes in intraocular pressure: their clinical significance[J]. Can J Ophthalmol, 2012, 47(5): 448－452.
[15]	Pepose JS, Feigenbaum SK, Qazi MA, et al. Changes in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic, and noncontact tonometry[J]. Am J Ophthal－mol, 2007, 143(1): 39－47.
[16]	Tsai AS, Loon SC. Intraocular pressure assessment after laser in situ keratomileusis: a review[J]. Clin Exp Optom, 2012, 40(3): 295－304.
[17]	Eliasy A, Chen KJ, Vinciguerra R, et al. Ex－vivo experimental validation of biomechanically－corrected intraocular pressure measurements on human eyes using the CorVis ST[J]. Exp Eye Res, 2018, 175: 98－102.
[18]	Elsheikh A, Geraghty B, Alhasso D, et al. Regional variation in the biomechanical properties of the human sclera[J]. Exp Eye Res, 2010, 90(5): 624－633.
[19]	Joda AA, Shervin MM, Kook D, et al. Development and validation of a correction equation for Corvis tonometry[J]. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin, 2016, 19(9): 943－953.
[20]	Fernández J, Rodríguez－Vallejo M, Martínez J, et al. New parameters for evaluating corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure after small－incision lenticule extraction by Scheimpflug－based dynamic tonometry[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2017, 43(6): 803－811.
[21]	Liu G, Rong H, Pei R, et al. Age distribution and associated factors of cornea biomechanical parameter stress－strain index in Chinese healthy population[J]. BMC Ophthalmol 2020, 20(1): 436.
[22]	Vinciguerra R, Ambrósio R, Roberts CJ, et al. Biomechanical characterization of subclinical keratoconus without topographic or tomographic abnormalities[J]. J Refract Surg, 2017, 33(6): 399－407.
[23]	Vinciguerra R, Ambrósio R, Elsheikh A, et al. Detection of keratoconus with a new biomechanical index[J]. J Refract Surg, 2016, 32(12): 803－810.
[24]	Wang YM, Chan TCY, Yu M, et al. Comparison of corneal dynamic and tomographic analysis in normal, forme fruste keratoconic, and keratoconic eyes[J]. J Refract Surg, 2017, 33(9): 632－638.
[25]	Chan TC, Wang YM, Yu M, et al. Comparison of corneal dynamic parameters and tomographic measurements using Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconus[J]. Br J Ophthalmol, 2018, 102(1): 42－47.
[26]	Steinberg J, Amirabadi NE, Frings A, et al. Keratoconus screening with dynamic biomechanical in vivo scheimpflug analyses: a proof－of－concept study[J]. J Refract Surg, 2017, 33(11): 773－778.
[27]	Augustin VA, Son HS, Baur I, et al. Detecting subclinical keratoconus by biomechanical analysis in tomographically regular keratoconus fellow eyes[J]. Eur J Ophthalmol, 2021, PMID: 34841930.
[28]	Ambrósio R, Lopes BT, Faria－Correia F, et al. Integration of scheimpflug－based corneal tomography and biomechanical assessments for enhancing Ectasia detection[J]. J Refract Surg, 2017, 33(7): 434－443.
[29]	Ferreira－Mendes J, Lopes BT, Faria－Correia F, et al. Enhanced Ectasia detection using corneal tomography and biomechanics[J]. Am J Ophthalmol, 2019, 197: 7－16.
[30]	Fernández J, Rodríguez－Vallejo M. Tomographic and biomechanical index (TBI) for screening in laser refractive surgery[J]. J Refract Surg, 2019, 35(6): 398.
[31]	Kataria P, Padmanabhan P, Gopalakrishnan A, et al. Accuracy of Scheimpflug－derived corneal biomechanical and tomographic indices for detecting subclinical and mild keratectasia in a South Asian population[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2019, 45(3): 328－336.
[32]	Steinberg J, Siebert M, Katz T, et al. Tomographic and biomechanical scheimpflug imaging for keratoconus characteri－zation: a validation of current indices[J]. J Refract Surg, 2018, 34(12): 840－847.
[33]	Xu H, Zong Y, Zhai R, et al. Intereye and intraeye asymmetry analysis of retinal microvascular and neural structure parameters for diagnosis of primary open－angle glaucoma[J]. Eye (London, England), 2019, 33(10): 1596－1605.
[34]	Elsheikh A, Geraghty B, Rama P, et al. Characterization of age－related variation in corneal biomechanical properties[J]. J R Soc Interface, 2010, 7(51): 1475－1485.
[35]	Clayson K, Pan X, Pavlatos E, et al. Corneoscleral stiffening increases IOP spike magnitudes during rapid microvolumetric change in the eye[J]. Exp Eye Res, 2017, 165: 29－34.
[36]	Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2005, 31(1): 146－155.
[37]	Ye Y, Li Y, Zhu Z, et al. Effect of mydriasis－caused intraocular pressure changes on corneal biomechanical metrics[J]. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2021, 9: 751628.
[38]	Maklad O, Eliasy A, Chen KJ, et al. Fluid－structure interaction based algorithms for iop and corneal material behavior[J]. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2020, 8: 970.
[39]	Han F, Li M, Wei P, et al. Effect of biomechanical properties on myopia: a study of new corneal biomechanical parameters[J]. BMC Ophthalmol 2020, 20(1): 459.
[40]	Zhang H, Eliasy A, Lopes B, et al. Stress－strain index map: a new way to represent corneal material stiffness[J]. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2021, 9: 640434.
[41]	Liu Y, Zhang Y, Chen Y. Application of a scheimpflug－based biomechanical analyser and tomography in the early detection of subclinical keratoconus in chinese patients[J]. BMC Ophthalmol 2021, 21(1): 339.
[42]	Daxer A, Misof K, Grabner B, et al. Collagen fibrils in the human corneal stroma: structure and aging[J]. Invest Ophth Vis Sci, 1998, 39(3): 644－648.
[43]	Blackburn BJ, Jenkins MW, Rollins AM, et al. A review of structural and biomechanical changes in the cornea in aging, disease, and photochemical crosslinking[J]. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2019, 7: 66.
[44]	He M, Ding H, He H, et al. Corneal biomechanical properties in healthy children measured by corneal visualization scheimpflug technology[J]. BMC Ophthalmol, 2017, 17(1): 70.
[45]	Tubtimthong A, Chansangpetch S, Ratprasatporn N, et al. Comparison of corneal biomechanical properties among axial myopic, nonaxial myopic, and nonmyopic eyes[J]. BioMed Res Int, 2020, PMID: 8618615.
[46]	Jonas JB, Xu L. Histological changes of high axial myopia[J]. Eye (London, England), 2014, 28(2): 113－117.
[47]	Harper AR, Summers JA. The dynamic sclera: extracellular matrix remodeling in normal ocular growth and myopia development[J]. Exp Eye Res, 2015, 133: 100－111.
[48]	Morgan SR, Dooley EP, Hocking PM, et al. An X－ray scattering study into the structural basis of corneal refractive function in an avian model[J]. Biophys J, 2013, 104(12): 2586－2594.
[49]	Chang SW, Tsai IL, Hu FR, et al. The cornea in young myopic adults[J]. Br J Ophthalmol, 2001, 85(8): 916－920.
[50]	Ohno－Matsui K, Akiba M, Ishibashi T, et al. Observations of vascular structures within and posterior to sclera in eyes with pathologic myopia by swept－source optical coherence tomography[J]. Invest Ophth Vis Sci, 2012, 53(11): 7290－7298.
[51]	Chua J, Nongpiur ME, Zhao W, et al. Comparison of corneal biomechanical properties between Indian and Chinese adults[J]. Ophthalmology, 2017, 124(9): 1271－1279.
[52]	Vinciguerra R, Herber R, Wang Y, et al. Corneal biomechanics differences between Chinese and Caucasian healthy subjects[J]. Front Med, 2022, 9: 834663.

第一作者(发表年份)	研究对象(只眼)^*		角膜地形图联合生物力学指数的临界值	敏感性(%)	特异性(%)
第一作者(发表年份)	正常角膜	圆锥角膜	角膜地形图联合生物力学指数的临界值	敏感性(%)	特异性(%)
Steinberg等^[32](2018)	105	96	0.110	72.0	71.0
			0.290	63.0	83.0
Fernández和Rodríguez－Vallejo^[30](2019)	312	118	0.335	94.4	94.9
			0.295	89.5	91.0
Ambrósio等^[28](2017)	480	204	0.295	89.5	91.0
			0.290	90.4	96.0
			0.790	100.0	100.0
Chan等^[25](2015)	21	21	0.160	84.4	82.4
Kataria等^[31](2019)	100	100	0.160	84.0	86.0
			0.630	99.0	100.0

第一作者(发表年份)	研究对象(只眼)^*		角膜地形图联合生物力学指数的临界值	敏感性(%)	特异性(%)
第一作者(发表年份)	正常角膜	圆锥角膜	角膜地形图联合生物力学指数的临界值	敏感性(%)	特异性(%)
Steinberg等^[32](2018)	105	96	0.110	72.0	71.0
			0.290	63.0	83.0
Fernández和Rodríguez－Vallejo^[30](2019)	312	118	0.335	94.4	94.9
			0.295	89.5	91.0
Ambrósio等^[28](2017)	480	204	0.295	89.5	91.0
			0.290	90.4	96.0
			0.790	100.0	100.0
Chan等^[25](2015)	21	21	0.160	84.4	82.4
Kataria等^[31](2019)	100	100	0.160	84.0	86.0
			0.630	99.0	100.0

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export