Corneal Hysteresis in Thais and Variation of Corneal Hysteresis in Glaucoma

References

• Leske MC. Ocular perfusion pressure and glaucoma: clinical trial and epidemiologic findings. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20(2):73–78. doi:10.1097/ICU.0b013e32831eef82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Girard MJ, Dupps WJ, Baskaran M, et al. Translating ocular biomechanics into clinical practice: current state and future prospects. Curr Eye Res. 2015;40(1):1–18. doi:10.3109/02713683.2014.914543
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen TD, Ethier CR. Biomechanical assessment in models of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Exp Eye Res. 2015;141:125–138. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2015.05.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siaudvytyte L, Januleviciene I, Ragauskas A, et al. The difference in translaminar pressure gradient and neuroretinal rim area in glaucoma and healthy subjects. J Ophthalmol. 2014;2014:937360. doi:10.1155/2014/937360
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonas JB, Ritch R, Panda-Jonas S. Cerebrospinal fluid pressure in the pathogenesis of glaucoma. Prog Brain Res. 2015;221:33–47. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ren R, Jonas JB, Tian G, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid pressure in glaucoma: a prospective study. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(2):259–266. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.06.058
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dascalescu D, Corbu C, Constantin M, et al. Correlations between corneal biomechanics and glaucoma severity in patients with primary open angle glaucoma. Maedica (Bucur). 2015;10(4):331–335.
   Google Scholar
• Liang L, Zhang R, He LY. Corneal hysteresis and glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol. 2019;39(8):1909–1916. doi:10.1007/s10792-018-1011-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Detry-Morel M, Jamart J, Hautenauven F, Pourjavan S. Comparison of the corneal biomechanical properties with the Ocular Response Analyzer® (ORA) in African and Caucasian normal subjects and patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90(2):e118–e124. doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2011.02274.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bueno-Gimeno I, Martínez-Albert N, Gené-Sampedro A, España-Gregori E. Anterior segment biometry and their correlation with corneal biomechanics in Caucasian children. Curr Eye Res. 2019;44(2):118–124. doi:10.1080/02713683.2018.1539181
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Ohmoto F. Effect of aging on corneal biomechanical parameters using the ocular response analyzer. J Refract Surg. 2009;25(10):888–893. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20090917-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morita T, Shoji N, Kamiya K, et al. Corneal biomechanical properties in normal-tension glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90:e48–e53. doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2011.02242.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pillunat KR, Hermann C, Spoerl E, Pillunat LE. Analyzing biomechanical parameters of the cornea with glaucoma severity in open-angle glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254(7):1345–1351. doi:10.1007/s00417-016-3365-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Bhojwani R, Mantry S, Cunliffe I. Assessment of the biomechanical properties of the cornea with the ocular response analyzer in normal and keratoconic eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(7):3026–3031. doi:10.1167/iovs.04-0694
   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
• Lam AK, Chen D, Tse J. The usefulness of waveform score from the ocular response analyzer. Optom Vis Sci. 2010;87(3):195–199. doi:10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181d1d940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodapp EPRI, Anderson DR. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St Louis: The CV Mosby Co; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Brusini P, Johnson CA. Staging functional damage in glaucoma: review of different classification methods. Surv Ophthalmol. 2007;52(2):156–179. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.12.008
   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
• Sullivan-Mee M, Halverson K, Pensyl D, Colonna K, Gerhardt G, Chavez C. Anterior scleral rigidity in primary open-angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(13):5548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Freeman EE, Descovich D, et al. Estimation of ocular rigidity in glaucoma using ocular pulse amplitude and pulsatile choroidal blood flow. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(3):1706–1711. doi:10.1167/iovs.12-9841
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furlanetto RL, Park SC, Damle UJ, et al. Posterior displacement of the lamina cribrosa in glaucoma: in vivo interindividual and intereye comparisons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(7):4836–4842. doi:10.1167/iovs.12-11530
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia X, Yu J, Liao SH, Duan XC. Biomechanics of the sclera and effects on intraocular pressure. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016;9(12):1824–1831. PMID: 28003987; PMCID: PMC5155000. doi:10.18240/ijo.2016.12.21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt JD, Beiser JA, Kass MA, Gordon MO. Central corneal thickness in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS). Ophthalmology. 2001;108(10):1779–1788. doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00760-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(6):714–830. doi:10.1001/archopht.120.6.714
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wolfs RC, Klaver CC, Vingerling JR, Grobbee DE, Hofman A, de Jong PT. Distribution of central corneal thickness and its association with intraocular pressure: the Rotterdam study. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123(6):767–772. doi:10.1016/s0002-9394(14)71125-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemesure B, Wu SY, Hennis A, Leske MC; Barbados Eye Study Group. Corneal thickness and intraocular pressure in the Barbados eye studies. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(2):240–244. doi:10.1001/archopht.121.2.240
   Google Scholar
• Mandalos A, Anastasopoulos E, Makris L, Dervenis N, Kilintzis V, Topouzis F. Inter-examiner reproducibility of Ocular Response Analyzer using the waveform score quality index in healthy subjects. J Glaucoma. 2013;22(2):152–155. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e318227e63e1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carbonaro F, Andrew T, Mackey DA, Spector TD, Hammond CJ. The heritability of corneal hysteresis and ocular pulse amplitude: a twin study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(9):1545–1549. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.02.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Cunliffe I, Mantry S. The use of the Reichert ocular response analyser to establish the relationship between ocular hysteresis, corneal resistance factor and central corneal thickness in normal eyes. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2006;29(5):257–262. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2006.09.006
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Foster PJ, Broadway DC, Garway-Heath DF, et al. Intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanics in an adult British population: the EPIC-Norfolk eye study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(11):8179–8185. doi:10.1167/iovs.11-7853
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leite MT, Alencar LM, Gore C, et al. Comparison of corneal biomechanical properties between healthy blacks and whites using the Ocular Response Analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;150(2):163–168.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2010.02.024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedaghat MR, Mohammad Zadeh V, Fadakar K, Kadivar S, Abrishami M. Normative values and contralateral comparison of anterior chamber parameters measured by Pentacam and its correlation with corneal biomechanical factors. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2017;31(1):7–10. doi:10.1016/j.sjopt.2016.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali A. Corneal hysteresis values in normal Egyptian population. Kasr Al Ainy Med J. 2017;23(1):38–42. doi:10.4103/1687-4625.207196
   Google Scholar
• Lim L, Gazzard G, Chan Y-H. Cornea biomechanical characteristics and their correlates with refractive error in Singaporean children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(9):3852–3857. doi:10.1167/iovs.07-1670
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song Y, Congdon N, Li L, et al. Corneal hysteresis and axial length among Chinese secondary school children: the Xichang Pediatric Refractive Error Study (X-PRES) report no. 4. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(5):819–826. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2007.12.034
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang HS, Park SK, Kim MS. The biomechanical properties of the cornea and anterior segment parameters. BMC Ophthalmol. 2013;13:49. doi:10.1186/1471-2415-13-49
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang JK, Huang TL, Pei-Yuan S, Chang PY. Factors affecting corneal hysteresis in Taiwanese adults. Eye Sci. 2015;30(3):89–93.
   Google Scholar
• Sharifipour F, Panahi-Bazaz M, Bidar R, Idani A, Cheraghian B. Age-related variations in corneal biomechanical properties. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2016;28(3):117–122. doi:10.1016/j.joco.2016.05.004
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Knox Cartwright NE, Tyrer JR, Marshall J. Age-related differences in the elasticity of the human cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(7):4324–4329. doi:10.1167/iovs.09-4798
   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
• Sundaresan Y, Veerappan M, Ramasamy KS, et al. Identification, quantification and age-related changes of human trabecular meshwork stem cells. Eye and Vis. 2019;6:31. doi:10.1186/s40662-019-0156-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spoerl E, Zubaty V, Raiskup-Wolf F, Pillunat LE. Oestrogen-induced changes in biomechanics in the cornea as a possible reason for keratectasia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91(11):1547–1550. doi:10.1136/bjo.2007.124388
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uchida K, Himori N, Hashimoto K, et al. The association between oxidative stress and corneal hysteresis in patients with glaucoma. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):545. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-57520-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweitzer JA, Ervin M, Berdahl JP. Assessment of corneal hysteresis measured by the ocular response analyzer as a screening tool in patients with glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:1809–1813. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S168032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park JH, Jun RM, Choi KR. Significance of corneal biomechanical properties in patients with progressive normal-tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99(6):746–751. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305962
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayoumi NH, Bessa AS, El Massry AA. Ocular response analyzer and Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study of findings. J Glaucoma. 2010;19(9):627–631. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181ca7e01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma. 2006;15(5):364–370. doi:10.1097/01.ijg.0000212268.42606.97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang H, Sun Z, Li L, et al. Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by ocular response analyzer and Goldmann applanation tonometer after corneal refractive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2020;20:23. doi:10.1186/s12886-019-1288-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrlich JR, Radcliffe NM, Shimmyo M. Goldmann applanation tonometry compared with corneal-compensated intraocular pressure in the evaluation of primary open-angle glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol. 2012;12:52. doi:10.1186/1471-2415-12-52
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourne RR, Sukudom P, Foster PJ, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma in Thailand: a population based survey in Rom Klao District, Bangkok. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(9):1069–1074. doi:10.1136/bjo.87.9.1069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang YX, Xu L, Wei WB, Jonas JB, Acott TS. Intraocular pressure and its normal range adjusted for ocular and systemic parameters. The Beijing Eye Study 2011. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0196926. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196926
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan MP, Grossi CM, Khawaja AP, et al. Associations with intraocular pressure in a large cohort: results from the UK biobank. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(4):771–782. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.11.031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, Johnson GJ. The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(2):238–242. doi:10.1136/bjo.86.2.238
   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
• Susanna CN, Diniz-Filho A, Daga FB, et al. A prospective longitudinal study to investigate corneal hysteresis as a risk factor for predicting development of glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;187:148–152. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2017.12.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang C, Tatham AJ, Abe RY, et al. Corneal hysteresis and progressive retinal nerve fiber layer loss in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;166:29–36. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2016.02.034
   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
• Narayanaswamy A, Su DH, Baskaran M, et al. Comparison of ocular response analyzer parameters in Chinese subjects with primary angle-closure and primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(4):429–434. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.60
   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
• Grise-Dulac A, Saad A, Abitbol O, et al. Assessment of corneal biomechanical properties in normal tension glaucoma and comparison with open-angle glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. J Glaucoma. 2012;21(7):486–489. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e318220daf0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolívar G, Sánchez-Barahona C, Teus M, et al. Effect of topical prostaglandin analogues on corneal hysteresis. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015;93:e495–e498. doi:10.1111/aos.12689
   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
• Cho AR, Rhew JY, Choi KR; Ewha Institute of Ophthalmology and Optometry. The effects of prostaglandin analogues on the corneal biomechanical factors in normal tension glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(13):4234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar