Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines...
-
Upload
ruth-hooker -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines...
![Page 1: Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines Cayuqueo Fabiola Cerfogli Claudia Goya Allister Gibbons.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051516/56649c905503460f94949945/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Biomechanical Properties of the
Cornea in Normal-Tension Glaucoma
Authors:Leonidas Traipe
Ines CayuqueoFabiola Cerfogli
Claudia GoyaAllister Gibbons
Universidad de Chile.Fundación Oftalmológica los
Andes.
The authors have no financial interest
![Page 2: Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines Cayuqueo Fabiola Cerfogli Claudia Goya Allister Gibbons.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051516/56649c905503460f94949945/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Purpose/Objectives
• To evaluate corneal Hysteresis (CH), Corneal resistance factor (CRF), Corneal Compensated IOP (ccIOP) and Goldman type IOP (gIOP), in patients with the diagnosis of normal-tension glaucoma.
![Page 3: Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines Cayuqueo Fabiola Cerfogli Claudia Goya Allister Gibbons.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051516/56649c905503460f94949945/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Materials/Methods• We analyzed 49 eyes of 26 patients seen
in our center. 22 (84.6%) of patients were female. The total sample had on average 68 ± 9.9 years.
• We identified the patients through the retrospective revision of clinical charts, and posteriorly examined them between March and July of 2008.
• The patients were examined with the Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer and Ultrasonic Pachimetry (CCT).
![Page 4: Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines Cayuqueo Fabiola Cerfogli Claudia Goya Allister Gibbons.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051516/56649c905503460f94949945/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Inclusion Criteria• Confirmed Diagnosis of Normal-Tension Glaucoma
(NTG)• IOP < 21 mmHg with the Goldman aplanation
Tonometer in all examinations without treatment• Open Angle determined by gonioscopy• Typicall glaucomatous optic disc damage, excavation
size, notch, etc.• Visual Field Defect compatible with the Optic Nerve
Defect• No previous intraocular surgery
Exclusion Criteria• IOP > 21 mmHg with the Goldman aplanation
Tonometer in any examination without treatment• Corneal ectasia• Contact lens user• Pregnancy
![Page 5: Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines Cayuqueo Fabiola Cerfogli Claudia Goya Allister Gibbons.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051516/56649c905503460f94949945/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Results / CH
R = 0.763p<0.0001
R = 0.554p<0.0001
![Page 6: Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines Cayuqueo Fabiola Cerfogli Claudia Goya Allister Gibbons.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051516/56649c905503460f94949945/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Results / CRF
R = 0.649p <0.0001
R = 0.761p <0.0001
![Page 7: Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines Cayuqueo Fabiola Cerfogli Claudia Goya Allister Gibbons.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051516/56649c905503460f94949945/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
• Practically no correlation (r = 0.407).
• This means aproximately only 16.6% of ccIOP could be explained by the CRF (R2 = 0,166)
R = 0.407p < 0.004
![Page 8: Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines Cayuqueo Fabiola Cerfogli Claudia Goya Allister Gibbons.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051516/56649c905503460f94949945/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Results / gIOP
R = 0.902p <0.0001
R = 0.434p < 0.002
![Page 9: Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines Cayuqueo Fabiola Cerfogli Claudia Goya Allister Gibbons.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051516/56649c905503460f94949945/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
• ccIOP and CCT do not seem to be governed by a linear relantionship. Either:– There is no relationship– The relationship is more complex
R = 0.182p < 0.19
![Page 10: Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines Cayuqueo Fabiola Cerfogli Claudia Goya Allister Gibbons.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051516/56649c905503460f94949945/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
• ccIOP was significantly higher than the gIOP.
The average difference was 2.01 mmHg
![Page 11: Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines Cayuqueo Fabiola Cerfogli Claudia Goya Allister Gibbons.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051516/56649c905503460f94949945/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Conclusions
• In our sample of NTG patients, Corneal Compensated IOP was higher than goldman simulated IOP - Approximately 2 mmHg.
• Corneal Resistance Factor:• Correlated positively with gIOP (R=0,76)• Correlated poorly with ccIOP (R=0,41)
• There was a strong correlation between Corneal Hysteresis and Corneal Resistance Factor.
![Page 12: Biomechanical Properties of the Cornea in Normal- Tension Glaucoma Authors: Leonidas Traipe Ines Cayuqueo Fabiola Cerfogli Claudia Goya Allister Gibbons.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051516/56649c905503460f94949945/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
• In our study population, our results differed from expected in that:– We found some correlation between Corneal
Hysteresis and Corneal Resistance Factor with the Central Corneal Thickness.
– There seems to be none or poor correlation between gIOP or ccIOP with Central Corneal Thickness.
• This could be explained in part because:– We used a diseased population.– We studied a population (chilean) for which
we have no normal values calculated.
Conclusions