Introduction and Clinical Validation of an Updated Biomechanically Corrected Intraocular Pressure bIOP (v2)

References

• Guo H, Hosseini-Moghaddam SM, Hodge W. Corneal biomechanical properties after SMILE versus FLEX, LASIK, LASEK, or PRK: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Opht. 2019;19(1):1–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sekundo W, Kunert KS, Blum M. Small incision corneal refractive surgery using the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedure for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism: results of a 6 month prospective study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95(3):335–339. doi:10.1136/bjo.2009.174284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khamar P, Shetty R, Vaishnav R, Francis M, Nuijts R, Sinha Roy A. Biomechanics of LASIK flap and SMILE cap: a prospective, clinical study. J Refract Surg. 2019;35(5):324–332. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20190319-01.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldmann H, Schmidt T. [Applanation tonometry]. Ophthalmologica. 1957;134(4):221–242. doi:10.1159/000303213.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stamper RL. A history of intraocular pressure and its measurement. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88(1):E16–E28. doi:10.1097/OPX.0b013e318205a4e7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(1):156–162. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.10.044.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambrósio R, Jr Ramos I, Luz A, Faria FC, Steinmueller A, Krug M, Belin MW, Roberts CJ. Dynamic ultra high speed Scheimpflug imaging for assessing corneal biomechanical properties. Rev Brasoftalmol. 2013;72(2):99–102. doi:10.1590/S0034-72802013000200005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Realini T, Weinreb RN, Hobbs G. Correlation of intraocular pressure measured with Goldmann and dynamic contour tonometry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma. 2009;18(2):119–123. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e31817d23c7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis BA, Hsieh A, Lai MY, Chopra V, Pena F, Azen S, Varma R, Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(1):20–26. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.06.047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):262–267. doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.081224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogden RW. Non-linear elastic deformations. 1997.
   Google Scholar
• The AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130(4):429–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burr J, Azuara-Blanco A, Avenell A, Tuulonen A. Medical versus surgical interventions for open angle glaucoma. Coch Data Syst Rev. 2012;(9). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004399.pub3/full.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Group C-T. Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126(4):487–497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joda AA, Shervin MM, Kook D, Elsheikh A. Development and validation of a correction equation for Corvis tonometry. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2016;19(9):943–953. doi:10.1080/10255842.2015.1077515.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsuura M, Murata H, Fujino Y, Yanagisawa M, Nakao Y, Tokumo K, Nakakura S, Kiuchi Y, Asaoka R. Relationship between novel intraocular pressure measurement from Corvis ST and central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104(4):563–568. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee H, Roberts CJ, Kim TI, Ambrosio R Jr, Elsheikh A, Yong Kang DS. Changes in biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure and dynamic corneal response parameters before and after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(12):1495–1503. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen K-J, Joda A, Vinciguerra R, Eliasy A, Sefat SMM, Kook D, Geraghty B, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A. 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 Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44(5):581–588. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.01.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliasy A, Chen K-J, Vinciguerra R, Maklad O, Vinciguerra P, Ambrósio R Jr, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A. Ex-vivo experimental validation of biomechanically-corrected intraocular pressure measurements on human eyes using the CorVis ST. Exp Eye Res. 2018;175:98–102. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2018.06.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts CJ, Mahmoud AM, Bons JP, Hossain A, Elsheikh A, Vinciguerra R, Vinciguerra P, Ambrosio R Jr. Introduction of two novel stiffness parameters and interpretation of air puff-induced biomechanical deformation parameters with a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer. J Refract Surg. 2017;33(4):266–273. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20161221-03.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliasy A, Chen K-J, Vinciguerra R, Lopes BT, Abass A, Vinciguerra P, Ambrósio R Jr, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A. Determination of corneal biomechanical behavior in-vivo for healthy eyes using CorVis ST tonometry: stress-strain index. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinciguerra R, Ambrosio R Jr, Elsheikh A, Roberts CJ, Lopes B, Morenghi E, Azzolini C, Vinciguerra P. Detection of keratoconus with a new biomechanical index. J Refract Surg. 2016;32(12):803–810. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20160629-01.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramm L, Herber R, Spoerl E, Raiskup F, Pillunat LE, Terai N. Intraocular pressure measurement using ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer, and Scheimpflug analyzer Corvis ST. J Ophthalmol. 2019;2019:1–9. doi:10.1155/2019/3879651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang K, Xu L, Fan Q, Zhao D, Ren S. Repeatability and comparison of new Corvis ST parameters in normal and keratoconus eyes. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herber R, Vinciguerra R, Lopes B, Raiskup F, Pillunat LE, Vinciguerra P, Ambrósio R. Jr Repeatability and reproducibility of corneal deformation response parameters of dynamic ultra-high-speed Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconus. J Cat Ref Sur. 2020;46(1):86–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao K, Liu L, Yu T, Chen F, Bai J, Liu T. Changes in corneal biomechanics during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK). Lasers Med Sci. 2020;35(3):599–609. doi:10.1007/s10103-019-02854-w.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bao F, Huang W, Zhu R, Lu N, Wang Y, Li H, Wu S, Lin H, Wang J, Zheng X, et al. Effectiveness of the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, the Dynamic Contour Tonometer, the Ocular Response Analyzer and the Corvis ST in measuring intraocular pressure following FS-LASIK. Curr Eye Res. 2020;45(2):144–152. doi:10.1080/02713683.2019.1660794.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliasy A. In vivo measurement of corneal stiffness and intraocular pressure to enable personalised disease management and treatment [Doctoral thesis]. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Wang J. Numerical simulation of corneal refractive surgery based on improved reconstruction of corneal surface: University of Liverpool; [Doctoral thesis]. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Ambrósio R Jr, Alonso RS, Luz A, Velarde LGC. Corneal-thickness spatial profile and corneal-volume distribution: tomographic indices to detect keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32(11):1851–1859. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.06.025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avitabile T, Marano F, Uva MG, Reibaldi A. Evaluation of central and peripheral corneal thickness with ultrasound biomicroscopy in normal and keratoconic eyes. Cornea. 1997;16(6):639–644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilani F, Cortese M, Ambrósio RR Jr, Lopes B, Ramos I, Harvey EM, Belin MW. Comprehensive anterior segment normal values generated by rotating Scheimpflug tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(11):1707–1712. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.05.042.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belin MW, Khachikian SS. New devices and clinical implications for measuring corneal thickness. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006;34(8):729–731. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9071.2006.01395.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubbelman M, Weeber HA, Van Der Heijde RG, Völker‐Dieben HJ. Radius and asphericity of the posterior corneal surface determined by corrected Scheimpflug photography. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2002;80(4):379–383. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0420.2002.800406.x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elsheikh A, Geraghty B, Alhasso D, Knappett J, Campanelli M, Rama P. Regional variation in the biomechanical properties of the human sclera. Exp Eye Res. 2010;90(5):624–633. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2010.02.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotecha A, Elsheikh A, Roberts CR, Zhu H, Garway-Heath DF. Corneal thickness-and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(12):5337–5347. doi:10.1167/iovs.06-0557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villamarin A, Roy S, Hasballa R, Vardoulis O, Reymond P, Stergiopulos N. 3D simulation of the aqueous flow in the human eye. Med Eng Phys. 2012;34(10):1462–1470. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2012.02.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsheikh A, Whitford C, Hamarashid R, Kassem W, Joda A, Buchler P. Stress free configuration of the human eye. Med Eng Phys. 2013;35(2):211–216. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2012.09.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maklad O, Eliasy A, Chen K-J, Theofilis V, Elsheikh A. Simulation of air puff tonometry test using arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian (ALE) deforming mesh for corneal material characterisation. IJERPH. 2019;17(1):54. doi:10.3390/ijerph17010054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsheikh A, Wang D, Brown M, Rama P, Campanelli M, Pye D. Assessment of corneal biomechanical properties and their variation with age. Curr Eye Res. 2007;32(1):11–19. doi:10.1080/02713680601077145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsheikh A, Geraghty B, Rama P, Campanelli M, Meek KM. Characterization of age-related variation in corneal biomechanical properties. J R Soc Interface. 2010;7(51):1475–1485. doi:10.1098/rsif.2010.0108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsheikh A, Geraghty D, Alhasso D, Rama P. Regional biomechanical behaviour of the human sclera and its variation with age. Inv Opht Vis Sci. 2009;50:E-Abstract 3948.
   Google Scholar
• Eliasy A, Abass A, Lopes BT, Vinciguerra R, Zhang H, Vinciguerra P, Ambrósio R, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A. Characterization of cone size and centre in keratoconic corneas. J R Soc Interface. 2020;17(169):20200271. doi:10.1098/rsif.2020.0271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopes BT, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A, Vinciguerra R, Vinciguerra P, Reisdorf S, Berger S, Koprowski R, Ambrósio R. Repeatability and reproducibility of intraocular pressure and dynamic corneal response parameters assessed by the Corvis ST. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:1–4. doi:10.1155/2017/8515742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinciguerra R, Elsheikh A, Roberts CJ, Ambrosio R Jr, Kang DS, Lopes BT, Morenghi E, Azzolini C, Vinciguerra P. Influence of pachymetry and intraocular pressure on dynamic corneal response parameters in healthy patients. J Refract Surg. 2016;32(8):550–561. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20160524-01.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang DH, Stulting RD. Change in intraocular pressure measurements after LASIK: the effect of the refractive correction and the lamellar flap. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(6):1009–1016. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.12.033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matlach J, Bender S, Konig J, Binder H, Pfeiffer N, Hoffmann EM. Investigation of intraocular pressure fluctuation as a risk factor of glaucoma progression. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:9–16. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S186526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(5):614–618. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanngiesser HE, Kniestedt C, Robert YC. Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer. J Glau. 2005;14(5):344–350. doi:10.1097/01.ijg.0000176936.16015.4e.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montard R, Kopito R, Touzeau O, Allouch C, Letaief I, Borderie V, Laroche L. Ocular response analyzer: feasibility study and correlation with normal eyes. J Fran D'opht. 2007;30(10):978–984. doi:10.1016/S0181-5512(07)79273-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong J, Xu J, Wei A, Deng SX, Cui X, Yu X, Sun X. A new tonometer—the Corvis ST tonometer: clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(1):659–665. doi:10.1167/iovs.12-10984.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choudhari NS, Jadhav V, George R, Vijaya L. Variability in the calibration error of the Goldmann applanation tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2011;20(8):492–496. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181f464b8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckley DH, Swikert M, Johnson RL. Friction, wear, and evaporation rates of various materials in vacuum to 10 − 7 mm Hg. ASLE Trans. 1962;5(1):8–23. doi:10.1080/05698196208972448.
   Google Scholar
• Ma J, Wang Y, Hao W, Jhanji V. Comparative analysis of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure with corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology versus conventional noncontact intraocular pressure. Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40(1):117–124. doi:10.1007/s10792-019-01159-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu D, Li M, Knorz MC, Wei S, Shang J, Zhou X. Intraocular pressure changes and corneal biomechanics after hyperopic small-incision lenticule extraction. BMC Ophth. 2020;20:1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedaghat M-R, Momeni-Moghaddam H, Yekta A, Elsheikh A, Khabazkhoob M, Ambrósio R Jr, Maddah N, Danesh Z. Biomechanically-corrected intraocular pressure compared to pressure measured with commonly used tonometers in normal subjects. Clin Optom. 2019;11:127–133. doi:10.2147/OPTO.S220776.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee S-h, Moon J-i, Jung YH. Comparison of intraocular pressures measured by the Corvis ST and other tonometers in normal eyes. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2019;60(12):1250–1256. doi:10.3341/jkos.2019.60.12.1250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee H, Roberts CJ, Ambrósio R, Elsheikh A, Kang DSY, Kim T-I. Effect of accelerated corneal crosslinking combined with transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy on dynamic corneal response parameters and biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure measured with a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer in healthy myopic patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(7):937–945. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.04.036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenia VP, Kenia RV, Pirdankar OH. Age-related variation in corneal biomechanical parameters in healthy Indians. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020;68(12):2921–2929. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_2127_19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abd El-Fattah EA, El Dorghamy AA, Ghoneim AM, Saad HA. Comparison of corneal biomechanical changes after LASIK and F-SMILE with CorVis ST. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(4):1762–1770. doi:10.1177/1120672120945664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye Y, Yang Y, Fan Y, Lan M, Yu K, Yu M. Comparison of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure obtained by Corvis ST and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. J Glau. 2019;28(10):922–928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen K-J, Eliasy A, Vinciguerra R, Abass A, Lopes BT, Vinciguerra P, Ambrósio R Jr, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A. Development and validation of a new intraocular pressure estimate for patients with soft corneas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45(9):1316–1323. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.04.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dos Santos VA, Schmetterer L, Stegmann H, Pfister M, Messner A, Schmidinger G, Garhofer G, Werkmeister RM. CorneaNet: fast segmentation of cornea OCT scans of healthy and keratoconic eyes using deep learning. Biomed Opt Express. 2019;10(2):622–641. doi:10.1364/BOE.10.000622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen S, Lopes BT, Huang W, Zheng X, Wang J, Zhu R, Vinciguerra R, Li Y, Wang Q, Li H, et al. Effectiveness of four tonometers in measuring intraocular pressure following femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK, SMILE and transepithelial PRK. J Cat Ref Surg. 2020;46(7):967–974.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moses RA. The Goldmann applanation tonometer. Am J Ophthalmol. 1958;46(6):865–869. doi:10.1016/0002-9394(58)90998-X.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotecha A, White E, Shewry J, Garway-Heath D. The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(12):1572–1575. doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.075580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goebels SC, Seitz B, Langenbucher A. Precision of ocular response analyzer. Curr Eye Res. 2012;37(8):689–693. doi:10.3109/02713683.2012.660592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar