SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Oftalmoloji Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 4

Corneal Biomechanical Properties of Keratoconic Eyes Following Penetrating Keratoplasty

Özlem BARUT SELVER
Melis PALAMAR
Hamidu GOBEKA
Ayşe YAĞCI
Sait EĞRİLMEZ
Pages
171–177
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The mean values of the dataobtained from Group 1 and 2 respectively were: corneal hysteresis (CH): 9.35±1.66, 8.18±1.84 mmHg (p=0.013), corneal resistancefactor (CRF): 9.48±1.96, 7.14±2.05 mmHg (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: To investigate the corneal biomechanical properties of keratoconic eyes following penetrating keratoplasty (PKP).Materials and Methods: Thirty-five patients (70 eyes) were enrolled to this prospective study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Operated and contralateral keratoconiceyes were defined as Group 1 and 2, respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The mean values of the dataobtained from Group 1 and 2 respectively were: corneal hysteresis (CH): 9.35±1.66, 8.18±1.84 mmHg (p=0.013), corneal resistancefactor (CRF): 9.48±1.96, 7.14±2.05 mmHg (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the corneal biomechanical properties of keratoconic eyes following penetrating keratoplasty (PKP).Materials and Methods: Thirty-five patients (70 eyes) were enrolled to this prospective study. Operated and contralateral keratoconiceyes were defined as Group 1 and 2, respectively. All patients underwent ophthalmological examination and measurements of cornealbiomechanical properties by Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA), intraocular pressure (IOP) by Goldmann applanation tonometry,and central corneal thickness (CCT) by Pentacam. Shapiro-Wilk W test was performed to test normality of the data. The statisticalsignificance was evaluated with the paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Pearson correlation and Spearman rho tests were usedfor correlation analysis.Results: The average age and male/female ratio were 31.34±11.65 (15-60) years and 21/14, respectively. The mean values of the dataobtained from Group 1 and 2 respectively were: corneal hysteresis (CH): 9.35±1.66, 8.18±1.84 mmHg (p=0.013), corneal resistancefactor (CRF): 9.48±1.96, 7.14±2.05 mmHg (p

🔖

Cite This Article

SELVER, Ö. B., PALAMAR, M., GOBEKA, H., YAĞCI, A., EĞRİLMEZ, S. (2022). Corneal Biomechanical Properties of Keratoconic Eyes Following Penetrating Keratoplasty. Türk Oftalmoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 4, 171–177. https://ajindex.com/articles/637799

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Skeens HM, Holland EJ. Large-diameter penetrating keratoplasty: indications and outcomes. Cornea. 2010;29:296-301.
  2. Ouyang PB, Li CY, Zhu XH, Duan XC. Assessment of intraocular pressure measured by Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer, Goldmann Applanation Tonometry, and Dynamic Contour Tonometry in healthy individuals. Int J Ophthalmol. 2012;5:102-107.
  3. Luce DA, Taylor D. Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer measures corneal biomechanical properties and IOP. White Paper. Available at http://www. ocularresponseanalyzer.com/ocular%20response%20analyzer%20white%20 paper.pdf. Accessed May 26, 2010. Luce DA. Methodology for corneal compensated IOP and corneal resistance factor for An Ocular Response Analyzer. Available at http://www. ocularresponseanalyzer.com/ downloads/luce-2006-1.pdf. Accessed May 26, 2010.
  4. Terai N, Raiskup F, Haustein M, Pillunat LE, Spoerl E. Identification of biomechanical properties of the cornea: the ocular response analyzer. Curr Eye Res. 2012;37:553-562.
  5. Hirneiss C, Neubauer AS, Yu A, Kampik A, Kernt M. Corneal biomechanics measured with the ocular response analyser in patients with unilateral openangle glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011;89:189-192.
  6. Alhamad TA, Meek KM. Comparison of factors that influence the measurement of corneal hysteresis in vivo and in vitro. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011;89:443-450.
  7. 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.
  8. Kamiya K, Hagishima M, Fujimura F, Shimizu K. Factors affecting corneal hysteresis in normal eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;246:1491-1494.
  9. 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. Touboul D, Roberts C, Kérautret J, Garra C, Maurice-Tison S, Saubusse E, Colin J. Correlations between corneal hysteresis, intraocular pressure, and corneal central pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:616-622.
  10. 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. Ostadimoghaddam H, Sedaghat MR, Yazdi SHH, Niyazmand H. The Correlation between Biomechanical Properties of Normal Cornea with Tomographic Parameters of Pentacam. Iranian Journa