Swelling Pressure and Hydration Behavior of Porcine Corneal Stroma

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to characterize swelling pressure–thickness, swelling pressure–hydration and hydration–thickness relations of porcine cornea.

Methods: Mechanical compression tests and free swelling experiments were performed on porcine cornea. A rheometer (DHR-2, TA Instruments) with a thermally controlled fluid chamber filled with 0.9% NaCl solution was used to measure the equilibrium swelling pressure of (n = 17) corneal stromal specimens. The samples were compressed incrementally and their swelling pressure–thickness relations were obtained. In parallel to this investigation, a transient digital imaging microscope (H800-CL, American Scope Inc.), a USB autofocus camera (UM05, ViTiny), and a precision weighing scale (AGZN100, Torbal) were simultaneously used to measure the weight–thickness relation of (n = 8) corneal specimens. This experimental study gave the thickness–hydration relationship required for expressing swelling pressure measurements as a function of hydration.

Results: At the in vivo 666 ± 68 µm central corneal thickness, an average swelling pressure of 52 ± 13 mmHg and hydration of 3.36 ± 0.25 mg H₂O/mg dry tissue were found. The swelling pressure was reported as functions of both tissue thickness and hydration. The average fixed charge density of and dry density of were found. The thickness–hydration relationship was only linear when the tissue thickness was within the range of physiological thickness.

Conclusion: Overall, the physiological hydration and swelling pressure of the porcine cornea were within the same range of those reported previously for other mammalian corneas such as steers, rabbits and humans. Nevertheless, the thickness–hydration behavior of the porcine cornea was only similar to that of the human cornea.

• Corneal stroma
• corneal swelling pressure
• free swelling experiments
• mechanical testing
• stromal hydration

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ralphs Packing Co for providing tissue samples. The authors would also like to thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.