Volume 25, Issue 4 (Avicenna Journal of Clinical Medicine-Winter 2019)                   Avicenna J Clin Med 2019, 25(4): 200-206 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Sorkhabi R, Khatibian P. Correlation of Biomechanical Features of Keratoconus Patients with Severity of Disease. Avicenna J Clin Med 2019; 25 (4) :200-206
URL: http://sjh.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-1823-en.html
1- Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2- Fellowship Resident, Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran , khatibianpejman@gmail.com
Abstract:   (2766 Views)
Background and Objective: Keratoconus is a disorder in cornea characterized by constant thinning and prominence that can result in vision defect. Due to ultrasonic changes in the corneal structure caused by keratoconus disease, its rigidity and biomechanical properties are subject to some changes. In this regard, the present study was conducted to determine the correlation of biomechanical features of keratoconus patients with the severity of the disease.
Materials and Methods: The case group was selected from the patients with keratoconus who referred to the Corneal Clinic of Nikookari Hospital in Tabriz and the controls had no eye diseases. Corneal biomechanics, corneal hysteresis, and corneal resistance factor were evaluated in all the samples using an ocular response analyzer device.
Results: The present study was carried out on 213 keratoconus eyes and 179 normal eyes. The mean scores of corneal hysteresis were obtained at 13.49±1.34 and 7.67±1.01 mmHg for normal and keratoconus eyes, respectively, which were significantly different between the two groups. The differences between the corneal hysteresis of mild (8.86 mm Hg), moderate (8.30 mm Hg), and severe (7.10 mm Hg) keratoconus eyes were also significant. The mean scores of the corneal resistance factor were reported as 12.68±1.15 and 7.36±1.07 mmHg for normal and keratoconus eyes, respectively, which were significantly different between the two groups. The differences between the corneal resistance factor of mild (8.55 mm Hg), moderate (8.05 mm Hg), and severe (6.76 mm Hg) keratoconus eyes were also significant.
Conclusion: The obtained results of the present study showed that corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor were lower in keratoconus eyes, compared to those in normal eyes and decreased with the severity of the disease.
Full-Text [PDF 347 kb]   (766 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original | Subject: Ophthalmology (all specialties)

References
1. Fournié 1, Touboul D, Arné JL, Colin J, Malecaze F. Keratoconus. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2013;36(7):618-26. PMID: 23911067 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfo.2013.05.004
2. Teng CC. Electron microscope study of the pathology of keratoconus: part 1. Am J Ophthalmol. 1963;55(1):18-47. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9394(63)91645-3
3. Li X, Rabinowitz YS, Rasheed K, Yang H. Longitudinal study of the normal eyes in unilateral keratoconus patients. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(3):440-6. PMID: 15019316 DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.06.020
4. Luce DA. Determining in-vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(1):156-62. PMID: 15721708 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.10.044
5. 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):3026-31. PMID: 17591868 DOI: 10.1167/iovs.04-0694
6. Saad A, Lteif Y, Azan E, Gatinel D. Biomechanical properties of keratoconus suspect eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(6):2912-6. PMID: 20042662 DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-4304
7. Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1984.
8. Millodot M, Ortenberg I, Lahav-Yacouel K, Behrman S. Effect of ageing on keratoconic corneas. J Optom. 2016;9(2):72-7. PMID: 26142151 DOI: 10.1016/j.optom. 2015.05.001
9. Davies PD, Lobascher D, Menon JA, Rahi AH, Ruben M. Immunological studies in keratoconus. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1976;96(1):173-8. PMID: 1070851
10. Kemp EG, Lewis CJ. Immunoglobulin patterns in keratoconus with particular reference to total and specific IgE levels. Br J Ophthalmol. 1982;66(11):717-20. PMID: 7126517
11. Kemp EG, Lewis CJ. Measurement of total and specific IgE levels in the management of a family exhibiting a high incidence of keratoconus. Acta Ophthalmol. 1984;62(4):524-9. PMID: 6485750
12. Duke-Elder S, Leigh AG. Diseases of the outer eye. Systems of ophthalmology. Part 2. London: Kimpton; 1964.
13. Karseras AG, Ruben M. Aetiology of keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol. 1976;60(7):523-5. PMID: 952827
14. McMonnies CW. Abnormal rubbing and keratectasia. Eye Contact Lens. 2007;33(6 Pt 1):265-71. PMID: 17993819 DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e31814fb64b
15. Hartstein J. Corneal warping due to wearing of corneal contact lens; a report of 12 cases. Am J Ophthalmol. 1965;60(6):1103-4. PMID: 5857015
16. Krachmer JH, Feder RS, Belin MW. Keratoconus and related noninflammatory corneal thinning disorders. Surv Ophthalmol. 1984;28(4):293-332. DOI: 10.1016/0039-6257(84)90094-8
17. Davidson AE, S Hayes S, Hardcastle AJ, Tuft SJ. The pathogenesis of keratoconus. Eye (Lond). 2014;28(2):189-95. PMID: 24357835 DOI: 10.1038/eye.2013.278
18. Chi HH, Katzin HM, Teng CC. Histopathology of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 1956;42(6):847-60. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9394(56)90654-7
19. 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(12):2144-50. PMID: 21978610 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.06.029
20. 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(3):209-15. PMID: 20481414 DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20100415-02
21. Johnson RD, Nguyen MT, Lee N, Hamilton DR. Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, forme fruste keratoconus, and manifest keratoconus after statistical correction for potentially confounding factors. Cornea. 2011;30(5):516-23. PMID: 21045653 DOI: 10.1097/ICO. 0b013e3181f0579e
22. Galletti JG, Pförtner 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(3):202-8. PMID: 22230059 DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20120103-03
23. Cohen EJ, Myers JS. Keratoconus and normal-tension glaucoma: a study of the possible association with abnormal biomechanical properties as measured by corneal hysteresis. Cornea. 2010;29(9):955-70. PMID: 20517150 DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181ca363c
24. Piñero DP, Alio JL, Barraquer RI, Michael R, Jiménez R. Corneal biomechanics, refraction, and corneal aberrometry in keratoconus: an integrated study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(4):1948-55. PMID: 19907021 DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-4177
25. Vinciguerra R, Ambrósio R Jr, Roberts CJ, Azzolini C, Vinciguerra P. Biomechanical characterization of subclinical keratoconus without topographic or tomographic abnormalities. J Refract Surg. 2017;33(6):399-407. PMID: 28586501 DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20170213-01

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Avicenna Journal of Clinical Medicine

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb