Corneal Biomechanics for Ocular Hypertension, Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma, and Amyloidotic Glaucoma: A Comparative Study by Corvis ST

References

• Brown KE, Congdon NG. Corneal structure and biomechanics: impact on the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17(4):338–343. doi:10.1097/01.icu.0000233951.01971.5b
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman AL, Miglior S. Risk factors for glaucoma onset and progression. Surv Ophthalmol. 2008;53(Suppl1):S3–10. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.08.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoyne CF, Downs JC, Bellezza AJ, Suh JK, Hart RT. The optic nerve head as a biomechanical structure: a new paradigm for understanding the role of IOP-related stress and strain in the pathophysiology of glaucomatous optic nerve head damage. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2005;24(1):39–73. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2004.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komai Y, Ushiki T. The three-dimensional organization of collagen fibrils in the human cornea and sclera. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32(8):2244–2258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Congdon NG, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, Grover D, Quigley HA. Central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis associated with glaucoma damage. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141(5):868–875. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2005.12.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medeiros FA, Meira-Freitas D, Lisboa R, Kuang TM, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN. Corneal hysteresis as a risk factor for glaucoma progression: a prospective longitudinal study. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(8):1533–1540. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanoff M, Duker JS, Augsburger JJ. Ophthalmology. 2nd ed. St Louis: Missouri: Mosby; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 4th Edition - Part 1 Supported by the EGS Foundation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(4):1–72. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-EGSguideline.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S. Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1975;53(1):34–43. doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.1975.tb01135.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holladay JT. Proper method for calculating average visual acuity. J Refract Surg. 1997;13(4):388–391. doi:10.3928/1081-597X-19970701-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Felletti M, Grasso L, Brusini P. Corneal deformation parameters provided by the Corvis-ST Pachy-Tonometer in healthy subjects and glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2015;24(8):568–574. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000000133
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinciguerra R, Rehman S, Vallabh NA, et al. Corneal biomechanics and biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure in primary open-angle glaucoma, ocular hypertension and controls. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104(1):121–126. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-313493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:105. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2019.00105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemeth G, Hassan Z, Csutak A, Szalai E, Berta A, Modis L Jr. Repeatability of ocular biomechanical data measurements with a Scheimpflug-based noncontact device on normal corneas. J Refract Surg. 2013;29(8):558–563. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20130719-06
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopes BT, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of intraocular pressure and dynamic corneal response parameters assessed by the Corvis ST. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:8515742. doi:10.1155/2017/8515742
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2081–2090. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huseynova T, Waring G, Roberts C, Krueger RR, Tomita M. Corneal biomechanics as a function of intraocular pressure and pachymetry by dynamic infrared signal and Scheimpflug imaging analysis in normal eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(4):885–893. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.12.024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts CJ. Concepts and misconceptions in corneal biomechanics. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40(6):862–869. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.04.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu N, Chen Y, Yu X, Li M, Wen W, Sun X. Changes in corneal biomechanical properties after long-term topical prostaglandin therapy. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0155527. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155527
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meda R, Wang Q, Paoloni D, Harasymowycz P, Brunette I. The impact of chronic use of prostaglandin analogues on the biomechanical properties of the cornea in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(2):120–125. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-308432
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ang GS, Bochmann F, Townend J, Azuara-Blanco A. Corneal biomechanical properties in primary open angle glaucoma and normal tension glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2008;17(4):259–262. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e31815c3a93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang W, Du S, Zhang X. Corneal deformation response in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and in healthy subjects analyzed by Corvis ST. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(9):5557–5565. doi:10.1167/iovs.15-16926
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian L, Wang D, Wu Y, et al. Corneal biomechanical characteristics measured by the CorVis Scheimpflug technology in eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma and normal eyes. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(5):e317–24. doi:10.1111/aos.12672
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung Y, Park HL, Yang HJ, Park CK. Characteristics of corneal biomechanical responses detected by a non-contact scheimpflug-based tonometer in eyes with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95(7):e556–e63. doi:10.1111/aos.13466
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee R, Chang RT, Wong IY, Lai JS, Lee JW, Singh K. Novel parameter of corneal biomechanics that differentiate normals from glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(6):e603–9. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000000284
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miki A, Yasukura Y, Weinreb RN, et al. Dynamic scheimpflug ocular biomechanical parameters in healthy and medically controlled glaucoma eyes. J Glaucoma. 2019;28(7):588–592. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000001268
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pradhan ZS, Deshmukh S, Dixit S, et al. A comparison of the corneal biomechanics in pseudoexfoliation glaucoma, primary open-angle glaucoma and healthy controls using Corvis ST. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0241296. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241296
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujishiro T, Matsuura M, Fujino Y, et al. The relationship between Corvis ST tonometry parameters and ocular response analyzer corneal hysteresis. J Glaucoma. 2020;29(6):479–484. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000001486
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinciguerra R, Elsheikh A, Roberts CJ, et al. 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
• Roberts CJ, Mahmoud AM, Bons JP, et al. 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
• Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Mantry S, Cunliffe I. Ocular response analyser to assess hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in low tension, open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;36(6):508–513. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9071.2008.01828.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy ML, Pokrovskaya O, Galligan M, O’Brien C. Corneal hysteresis in patients with glaucoma-like optic discs, ocular hypertension and glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17(1):1. doi:10.1186/s12886-016-0396-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vieira MJ, Pereira J, Castro M, Arruda H, Martins J, Sousa JP. Efficacy of corneal shape index in the evaluation of ocular hypertension, primary open-angle glaucoma and exfoliative glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2020;1120672120972020. doi:10.1177/1120672120972020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimura A, Ando E, Fukushima M, et al. Secondary glaucoma in patients with familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(3):351–356. doi:10.1001/archopht.121.3.351
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beirao JM, Malheiro J, Lemos C, Beirao I, Costa P, Torres P. Ophthalmological manifestations in hereditary transthyretin (ATTR V30M) carriers: a review of 513 cases. Amyloid. 2015;22(2):117–122. doi:10.3109/13506129.2015.1015678
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marta A, Vieira R, Figueiredo A, et al. Ahmed valve for secondary glaucoma in patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis. Eye (Lond). 2021. doi:10.1038/s41433-021-01443-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latasiewicz M, Milla E, Giralt J, Molina JJ, Matas J. Nonpenetrating deep sclerectomy as an effective treatment of glaucoma related to familial amyloid polyneuropathy. J Glaucoma. 2015;24(5):e80–3. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000000126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsuura M, Hirasawa K, Murata H, Nakakura S, Kiuchi Y, Asaoka R. Using CorvisST tonometry to assess glaucoma progression. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0176380. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176380
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozkok A, Tamcelik N, Ozdamar A, Sarici AM, Cicik E. Corneal viscoelastic differences between pseudoexfoliative glaucoma and primary open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2013;22(9):740–745. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000000036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costin BR, Fleming GP, Weber PA, Mahmoud AM, Roberts CJ. Corneal biomechanical properties affect Goldmann applanation tonometry in primary open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2014;23(2):69–74. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e318269804b
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsuura M, Murata H, Fujino Y, et al. 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
• Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Dynamic contour tonometry: a comparative study on human cadaver eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(9):1287–1293. doi:10.1001/archopht.122.9.1287
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry compared with applanation tonometry in human cadaver eyes of different hydration states. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243(4):359–366. doi:10.1007/s00417-004-1024-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feltgen N, Leifert D, Funk J. Correlation between central corneal thickness, applanation tonometry, and direct intracameral IOP readings. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85(1):85–87. doi:10.1136/bjo.85.1.85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Exp Eye Res. 2018;175:98–102. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2018.06.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei Y, Xu L, Song H. Application of Corvis ST to evaluate the effect of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery on corneal biomechanics. Exp Ther Med. 2017;14(2):1626–1632. doi:10.3892/etm.2017.4675
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seymenoglu G, Uzun O, Baser E. Surgically induced changes in corneal viscoelastic properties after 23-gauge pars plana vitrectomy using ocular response analyzer. Curr Eye Res. 2013;38(1):35–40. doi:10.3109/02713683.2012.707269
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boote C, Sigal IA, Grytz R, Hua Y, Nguyen TD, Girard MJA. Scleral structure and biomechanics. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2020;74:100773. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.100773
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar