Identification of Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea: The Ocular Response Analyzer

REFERENCES

• Broman AT, Congdon NG, Bandeen-Roche K, Quigley HA. Influence of corneal structure, corneal responsiveness, and other ocular parameters on tonometric measurement of intraocular pressure. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:581–588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Moraes CG, Juthani VJ, Liebmann JM et al. Risk factors for visual field progression in treated glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129:562–568.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lesk MR, Hafez AS, Descovich D. Relationship between central corneal thickness and changes of optic nerve head topography and blood flow after intraocular pressure reduction in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:1568–1572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsheikh A, Ross S, Alhasso D, Rama P. Numerical study of the effect of corneal layered structure on ocular biomechanics. Curr Eye Res. 2009;34:26–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wollensak G, Spoerl E, Seiler T. Stress-strain measurements of human and porcine corneas after riboflavin-ultraviolet-A-induced cross-linking. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:1780–1785.
   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;31:156–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsheikh A, Alhasso D, Kotecha A, Garway-Heath D. Assessment of the ocular response analyzer as a tool for intraocular pressure measurement. J Biomech Eng. 2009;131:081010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nishimura M, Yan W, Mukudai Y et al. Role of chondroitin sulfate-hyaluronan interactions in the viscoelastic properties of extracellular matrices and fluids. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1998;1380:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Reinstein DZ, Gobbe M, Archer TJ. Ocular biomechanics: measurement parameters and terminology. J Refract Surg. 2011;27:396–397.
   Google Scholar
• Dupps WJ Jr. Hysteresis: new mechanospeak for the ophthalmologist. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33:1499–1501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau W, Pye D. A clinical description of Ocular Response Analyzer measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:2911–2916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glass DH, Roberts CJ, Litsky AS, Weber PA. A viscoelastic biomechanical model of the cornea describing the effect of viscosity and elasticity on hysteresis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:3919–3926.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka E, Aoyama J, Tanaka M et al. The proteoglycan contents of the temporomandibular joint disc influence its dynamic viscoelastic properties. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003;65:386–392.
   Google Scholar
• Wang J, Long A, Clifford M. Experimental measurements and predictive modelling of bending behaviour for viscous unidirectional composite materials. Int J Material Forming. 2010;3:1253–1266.
   Google Scholar
• Frey E, Kroy K, Wilhelm J. Viscoelasticity of biopolymer networks and statistical mechanics of semiflexible polymers. Advances in Structural Biology. 1999;5:135–168.
   Google Scholar
• Ribe NM. Bending and stretching of thin viscous sheets. J Fluid Mech. 2001;433:135–160.
   Google Scholar
• Boote C, Dennis S, Huang Y, Quantock AJ, Meek KM. Lamellar orientation in human cornea in relation to mechanical properties. J Struct Biol. 2005;149:1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Késmárky G, Kenyeres P, Rábai M, Tóth K. Plasma viscosity: a forgotten variable. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2008;39:243–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minns RJ, Soden PD, Jackson DS. The role of the fibrous components and ground substance in the mechanical properties of biological tissues: a preliminary investigation. J Biomech. 1973;6:153–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu WC, Lee SM, Graham AD, Lin MC. Effects of Eye Rubbing and Breath Holding on Corneal Biomechanical Properties and Intraocular Pressure. Cornea. 2011;30:855–860.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spoerl E, Terai N, Scholz F, Raiskup F, Pillunat LE. Detection of biomechanical changes after corneal cross-linking using Ocular Response Analyzer software. J Refract Surg. 2011;27:452–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kynigopoulos M, Schlote T, Kotecha A, Tzamalis A, Pajic B, Haefliger I. Repeatability of intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanical properties measurements by the ocular response analyser. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2008;225:357–360.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moreno-Montañés J, Maldonado MJ, García N, Mendiluce L, García-Gómez PJ, Seguí-Gómez M. Reproducibility and clinical relevance of the ocular response analyzer in nonoperated eyes: corneal biomechanical and tonometric implications. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:968–974.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spörl E, Terai N, Haustein M, Böhm AG, Raiskup-Wolf F, Pillunat LE. [Biomechanical condition of the cornea as a new indicator for pathological and structural changes]. Ophthalmologe. 2009;106:512–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam A, Chen D, Tse J. The usefulness of waveform score from the Ocular Response Analyzer. Optomet Vis Sci. 2010;87:195–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shields MB. The non-contact tonometer. Its value and limitations. Surv Ophthalmol. 1980;24:211–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kida T, Liu JH, Weinreb RN. Effect of 24-hour corneal biomechanical changes on intraocular pressure measurement. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:4422–4426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laiquzzaman M, Bhojwani R, Cunliffe I, Shah S. Diurnal variation of ocular hysteresis in normal subjects: relevance in clinical context. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2006;34:114–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotecha A, Crabb DP, Spratt A, Garway-Heath DF. The relationship between diurnal variations in intraocular pressure measurements and central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:4229–4236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oncel B, Dinc UA, Gorgun E, Yalvaç BI. Diurnal variation of corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure in normal subjects. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19:798–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirwan C, O’Keefe M, Lanigan B. Corneal hysteresis and intraocular pressure measurement in children using the Reichert ocular response analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142:990–992.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehongo A, De Maertelaer V, Pourjavan S. Effect of topical corneal anaesthesia on ocular response analyzer parameters: pilot study. Int Ophthalmol. 2009;29:325–328.
   Google Scholar
• Kamiya K, Hagishima M, Fujimura F, Shimizu K. Factors affecting corneal hysteresis in normal eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;246:1491–1494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Touboul D, Roberts C, Kérautret J et al. Correlations between corneal hysteresis, intraocular pressure, and corneal central pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:616–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu F, Xu S, Qu J et al. Central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis during corneal swelling induced by contact lens wear with eye closure. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:616–622.
   PubMed 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;29:257–262.
   PubMedGoogle 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;115:1545–1549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• del Buey MA, Cristóbal JA, Ascaso FJ, Lavilla L, Lanchares E. Biomechanical properties of the cornea in Fuchs’ corneal dystrophy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:3199–3202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Detry-Morel M, Jamart J, Pourjavan S. Evaluation of corneal biomechanical properties with the Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2011;21:138–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mangouritsas G, Morphis G, Mourtzoukos S, Feretis E. Association between corneal hysteresis and central corneal thickness in glaucomatous and non-glaucomatous eyes. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009;87:901–905.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oncel B, Dinc U, Orge F, Yalvac B. Comparison of IOP measurement by ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour, Goldmann applanation, and noncontact tonometry. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19:936–941.
   Google Scholar
• Abitbol O, Bouden J, Doan S, Hoang-Xuan T, Gatinel D. Corneal hysteresis measured with the Ocular Response Analyzer in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Acta Ophthalmol. 2010;88:116–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alhamad TA, Meek KM. Comparison of factors that influence the measurement of corneal hysteresis in vivo and in vitro. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011;89:e443–e450.
   Google Scholar
• Bayoumi NH, Bessa AS, El Massry AA. Ocular response analyzer and Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study of findings. J Glaucoma. 2010;19:627–631.
   Google Scholar
• Schroeder B, Hager A, Kutschan A, Wiegand W. [Measurement of viscoelastic corneal parameters (corneal hysteresis) in patients with primary open angle glaucoma]. Ophthalmologe. 2008;105:916–920.
   Google Scholar
• Mansouri K, Leite MT, Weinreb RN, Tafreshi A, Zangwill LM, Medeiros FA. Association between corneal biomechanical properties and glaucoma severity. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:419–427.e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galletti JG, Pfortner T, Bonthoux FF. Improved Keratoconus Detection by Ocular Response Analyzer Testing After Consideration of Corneal Thickness as a Confounding Factor. J Refract Surg. 2012;28:1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Yu AY, Duan SF, Zhao YE et al. Correlation between corneal biomechanical properties, applanation tonometry and direct intracameral tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Hirneiss C, Neubauer AS, Yu A, Kampik A, Kernt M. Corneal biomechanics measured with the ocular response analyser in patients with unilateral open-angle glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011;89:e189–e192.
   Google 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;52:8179–8185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMonnies CW. Assessing corneal hysteresis using the ocular response analyzer. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89:E343–E349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen M, Fan F, Xue A, Wang J, Zhou X, Lu F. Biomechanical properties of the cornea in high myopia. Vision Res. 2008;48:2167–2171.
   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;17:259–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam AK, Chen D. Effect of ocular massage on intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanics. Eye (Lond). 2007;21:1245–1246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iordanidou V, Hamard P, Gendron G, Labbé A, Raphael M, Baudouin C. Modifications in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure after deep sclerectomy. J Glaucoma. 2010;19:252–256.
   Google Scholar
• Shin JY, Choi JS, Oh JY, Kim MK, Lee JH, Wee WR. Evaluation of corneal biomechanical properties following penetrating keratoplasty using the ocular response analyzer. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2010;24:139–142.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Malik NS, Moss SJ, Ahmed N, Furth AJ, Wall RS, Meek KM. Ageing of the human corneal stroma: structural and biochemical changes. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1992;1138:222–228.
   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;47:5337–5347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortiz D, Piñero D, Shabayek MH, Arnalich-Montiel F, Alió JL. Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post-laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33:1371–1375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kida T, Liu JH, Weinreb RN. Effects of aging on corneal biomechanical properties and their impact on 24-hour measurement of intraocular pressure. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;146:567–572.
   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;25:888–893.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee ES, Kim CY, Ha SJ, Seong GJ, Hong YJ. Central corneal thickness of Korean patients with glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:927–930.
   Google Scholar
• Wong TT, Wong TY, Foster PJ, Crowston JG, Fong CW, Aung T; SiMES Study Group. The relationship of intraocular pressure with age, systolic blood pressure, and central corneal thickness in an Asian population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:4097–4102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen M, Wang J, Qu J et al. Diurnal variation of ocular hysteresis, corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:1185–1192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hager A, Wegscheider K, Wiegand W. Changes of extracellular matrix of the cornea in diabetes mellitus. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;247:1369–1374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim L, Gazzard G, Chan YH et al. Cornea biomechanical characteristics and their correlates with refractive error in Singaporean children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:3852–3857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen D, Lam AK, Cho P. A pilot study on the corneal biomechanical changes in short-term orthokeratology. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009;29:464–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plakitsi A, O’Donnell C, Miranda MA, Charman WN, Radhakrishnan H. Corneal biomechanical properties measured with the Ocular Response Analyser in a myopic population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31:404–412.
   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;145:819–826.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen MC, Lee N, Bourla N, Hamilton DR. Corneal biomechanical measurements before and after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:1886–1891.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pepose JS, Feigenbaum SK, Qazi MA, Sanderson JP, Roberts CJ. Changes in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic, and noncontact tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:39–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Medeiros FW, Sinha-Roy A, Alves MR, Wilson SE, Dupps WJ Jr. Differences in the early biomechanical effects of hyperopic and myopic laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36:947–953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah S, Laiquzzaman M. Comparison of corneal biomechanics in pre and post-refractive surgery and keratoconic eyes by Ocular Response Analyser. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2009;32:129–132; quiz 151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Yeung I, Pan X, Roberts C. The use of the Ocular Response Analyser to determine corneal hysteresis in eyes before and after excimer laser refractive surgery. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2009;32:123–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Ohmoto F. Time course of corneal biomechanical parameters after laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmic Res. 2009;42:167–171.
   Google Scholar
• Gatinel D, Chaabouni S, Adam PA, Munck J, Puech M, Hoang-Xuan T. Corneal hysteresis, resistance factor, topography, and pachymetry after corneal lamellar flap. J Refract Surg. 2007;23:76–84.
   Google Scholar
• Kerautret J, Colin J, Touboul D, Roberts C. Biomechanical characteristics of the ectatic cornea. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:510–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dauwe C, Touboul D, Roberts CJ et al. Biomechanical and morphological corneal response to placement of intrastromal corneal ring segments for keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35:1761–1767.
   Google Scholar
• Mikielewicz M, Kotliar K, Barraquer RI, Michael R. Air-pulse corneal applanation signal curve parameters for the characterisation of keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95:793–798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laiquzzaman M, Tambe K, Shah S. Comparison of biomechanical parameters in penetrating keratoplasty and normal eyes using the Ocular Response Analyser. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2010;38:758–763.
   Google Scholar
• Jafarinasab MR, Feizi S, Javadi MA, Hashemloo A. Graft biomechanical properties after penetrating keratoplasty versus deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Curr Eye Res. 2011;36:417–421.
   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;48:3026–3031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fontes BM, Ambrósio R Jr, Jardim D, Velarde GC, Nosé W. Corneal biomechanical metrics and anterior segment parameters in mild keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:673–679.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saad A, Lteif Y, Azan E, Gatinel D. Biomechanical properties of keratoconus suspect eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:2912–2916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fontes BM, Ambrósio R Jr., Velarde GC, Nosé W. Ocular response analyzer measurements in keratoconus with normal central corneal thickness compared with matched normal control eyes. J Refract Surg. 2011;27:209–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akhtar S, Bron AJ, Salvi SM, Hawksworth NR, Tuft SJ, Meek KM. Ultrastructural analysis of collagen fibrils and proteoglycans in keratoconus. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008;86:764–772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gefen A, Shalom R, Elad D, Mandel Y. Biomechanical analysis of the keratoconic cornea. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2009;2:224–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Touboul D, Bénard A, Mahmoud AM, Gallois A, Colin J, Roberts CJ. Early biomechanical keratoconus pattern measured with an ocular response analyzer: curve analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:2144–2150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahmoud AM, Twa M, Qazi M, Pepose J, Roberts C. Comparison of Biomechanical and Topographic Parameters in Normal and Pathologic Corneas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:E-1843 Available at www.iovs.org.
   Google Scholar
• Spoerl E, Huhle M, Seiler T. Induction of cross-links in corneal tissue. Exp Eye Res. 1998;66:97–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldich Y, Barkana Y, Morad Y, Hartstein M, Avni I, Zadok D. Can we measure corneal biomechanical changes after collagen cross-linking in eyes with keratoconus?–a pilot study. Cornea. 2009;28:498–502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wollensak G, Sporl E, Mazzotta C, Kalinski T, Sel S. Interlamellar cohesion after corneal crosslinking using riboflavin and ultraviolet A light. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95:876–880.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurita Y, Kempf R, Iida Y et al. Contact-based stiffness sensing of human eye. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2008;55:739–745.
   Google Scholar
• Vinciguerra P, Albè E, Mahmoud AM, Trazza S, Hafezi F, Roberts CJ. Intra- and postoperative variation in ocular response analyzer parameters in keratoconic eyes after corneal cross-linking. J Refract Surg. 2010;26:669–676.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castro DP, Prata TS, Lima VC, Biteli LG, de Moraes CG, Paranhos A Jr.. Corneal viscoelasticity differences between diabetic and nondiabetic glaucomatous patients. J Glaucoma. 2010;19:341–343.
   Google Scholar
• Kotecha A, Oddone F, Sinapis C et al. Corneal biomechanical characteristics in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36:1822–1828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahin A, Bayer A, Ozge G, Mumcuoglu T. Corneal biomechanical changes in diabetes mellitus and their influence on intraocular pressure measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:4597–4604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pokharna HK, Pottenger LA. Nonenzymatic glycation of cartilage proteoglycans: an in vivo and in vitro study. Glycoconj J. 1997;14:917–923.
   Google Scholar
• Scheler A, Spoerl E, Boehm A. Effect of diabetes mellitus on corneal biomechanics and measurement of intraocular pressure. Acta Ophthalmologica. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Roy R, Boskey AL, Bonassar LJ. Non-enzymatic glycation of chondrocyte-seeded collagen gels for cartilage tissue engineering. J Orthop Res. 2008;26:1434–1439.
   Google Scholar
• Hager A, Loge K, Füllhas MO, Schroeder B, Grossherr M, Wiegand W. Changes in corneal hysteresis after clear corneal cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:341–346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hager A, Loge K, Kutschan A, Wiegand W. [The effect of cataract and vitreoretinal surgery on central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2008;225:207–211.
   Google Scholar
• Kucumen RB, Yenerel NM, Gorgun E et al. Corneal biomechanical properties and intraocular pressure changes after phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:2096–2098.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahnehjelm KT, Chen E, Winiarski J. Corneal hysteresis in mucopolysaccharidosis I and VI. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011 Epub ahead of print.
   Google Scholar
• Kara N, Bozkurt E, Baz O et al. Corneal biomechanical properties and intraocular pressure measurement in Marfan patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:309–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulkkinen L, Kainulainen K, Krusius T et al. Deficient expression of the gene coding for decorin in a lethal form of Marfan syndrome. J Biol Chem. 1990;265:17780–17785.
   Google Scholar
• Superti-Furga A, Raghunath M, Willems PJ. Deficiencies of fibrillin and decorin in fibroblast cultures of a patient with neonatal Marfan syndrome. J Med Genet. 1992;29:875–878.
   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;120:714–20; discussion 829.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albon J, Purslow PP, Karwatowski WS, Easty DL. Age related compliance of the lamina cribrosa in human eyes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:318–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells AP, Garway-Heath DF, Poostchi A, Wong T, Chan KC, Sachdev N. Corneal hysteresis but not corneal thickness correlates with optic nerve surface compliance in glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:3262–3268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bochmann F, Ang GS, Azuara-Blanco A. Lower corneal hysteresis in glaucoma patients with acquired pit of the optic nerve (APON). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;246:735–738.
   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;141:868–875.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anand A, De Moraes CG, Teng CC, Tello C, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Corneal hysteresis and visual field asymmetry in open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:6514–6518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun L, Shen M, Wang J et al. Recovery of corneal hysteresis after reduction of intraocular pressure in chronic primary angle-closure glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147:1061–6, 1066.e1.
   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 Experiment Ophthalmol. 2008;36:508–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar