Literature DB >> 22440435

Corneal deformation signal waveform analysis in keratoconic versus post-femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis eyes after statistical correction for potentially confounding factors.

Siamak Zarei-Ghanavati1, Arturo Ramirez-Miranda, Fei Yu, D Rex Hamilton.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare corneal biomechanical waveform parameters between keratoconic and post-femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
SETTING: Jules Stein Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
DESIGN: Comparative case series.
METHODS: The Ocular Response Analyzer was used to obtain the corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), and 39 biomechanical waveform parameters in manifest keratoconic eyes and post-femtosecond LASIK eyes. Univariate tests were used to assess the difference in each parameter between the 2 groups of eyes. After controlling for central corneal thickness (CCT) and age, a logistic regression model was used to select the parameters most useful in distinguishing between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: After statistically controlling for the differences in CCT and age, 7 parameters were found to be the most useful in distinguishing between groups: aplhf (high frequency noise in the region between peaks [P1 and P2]; P<.0001), w2 (width of P2 at base; P=.001), dslop1 (down-slope of P1 of wave; P<.0001), aindex (degree of "non-monotonicity" of rising and falling edges of first peak of wave, P=.0007), uslope1 (upslope of the P1 of wave; P=.001), CH (P=.035), and P1area (area under P1 of wave; P=.006). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model using these parameters was 0.932.
CONCLUSIONS: Differences in multiple biomechanical waveform parameters between the keratoconus and post-LASIK groups suggests that waveform analysis may be useful to differentiate between healthy and diseased biomechanical conditions.
Copyright © 2012 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22440435     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.11.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg        ISSN: 0886-3350            Impact factor:   3.351


  6 in total

1.  Epithelial remodeling as basis for machine-based identification of keratoconus.

Authors:  Ronald H Silverman; Raksha Urs; Arindam Roychoudhury; Timothy J Archer; Marine Gobbe; Dan Z Reinstein
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 2.  Advances in Biomechanical Parameters for Screening of Refractive Surgery Candidates: A Review of the Literature, Part III.

Authors:  Majid Moshirfar; Mahsaw N Motlagh; Michael S Murri; Hamed Momeni-Moghaddam; Yasmyne C Ronquillo; Phillip C Hoopes
Journal:  Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol       Date:  2019

3.  Corneal biomechanics in iatrogenic ectasia and keratoconus: A review of the literature.

Authors:  Majid Moshirfar; Jason N Edmonds; Nicholas L Behunin; Steven M Christiansen
Journal:  Oman J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-01

Review 4.  Corneal biomechanical properties in different ocular conditions and new measurement techniques.

Authors:  Nery Garcia-Porta; Paulo Fernandes; Antonio Queiros; Jose Salgado-Borges; Manuel Parafita-Mato; Jose Manuel González-Méijome
Journal:  ISRN Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-03-04

5.  Biomechanics of the cornea evaluated by spectral analysis of waveforms from ocular response analyzer and Corvis-ST.

Authors:  Sushma Tejwani; Rohit Shetty; Mathew Kurien; Shoruba Dinakaran; Arkasubhra Ghosh; Abhijit Sinha Roy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Age-Related Variations of Rabbit Corneal Geometrical and Clinical Biomechanical Parameters.

Authors:  Haixia Zhang; Xiao Qin; Xiaomeng Cao; Di Zhang; Lin Li
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-08-13       Impact factor: 3.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.