Cynthia J Roberts1, Dan Z Reinstein2, Timothy J Archer1, Ashraf M Mahmoud1, Marine Gobbe1, Linden Lee1. 1. From the Department of Ophthalmology and the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Roberts, Mahmoud), and the College of Medicine (Lee), The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; the Department of Ophthalmology (Reinstein), Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA; the London Vision Clinic (Reinstein, Archer, Gobbe), London, United Kingdom; the Centre Hospitalier National d'Ophtalmologie (Reinstein), Paris, France. 2. From the Department of Ophthalmology and the Department of Biomedical Engineering (Roberts, Mahmoud), and the College of Medicine (Lee), The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; the Department of Ophthalmology (Reinstein), Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA; the London Vision Clinic (Reinstein, Archer, Gobbe), London, United Kingdom; the Centre Hospitalier National d'Ophtalmologie (Reinstein), Paris, France. Electronic address: dzr@londonvisionclinic.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare differences in the ocular biomechanical response in myopic and hyperopic eyes. SETTING: London Vision Clinic, London, United Kingdom, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States. DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: The study population included myopic and hyperopic patients evaluated preoperatively for refractive surgery at the London Vision Clinic between June 2006 and May 2008. Biomechanical response parameters from the dynamic bidirectional applanation device (Ocular Response Analyzer) were analyzed using custom software for signal analysis, including corneal hysteresis (CH) and 10 other output parameters. Hyperopic eyes were compared with myopic eyes first matched for age and pachymetry and then matched for age, pachymetry, and corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc). Nonpaired t tests were performed (P<.05) to compare parameters in the 2 groups. RESULTS: Consecutive patients included 2608 eyes with 1623 myopic eyes and 787 hyperopic eyes that met enrollment criteria. A significant correlation (P<.0001) was shown between CH and age (negative), pachymetry (positive), and IOPcc (negative). The first match included 473 eyes in each group, and the second match included 260 eyes in each group. When matching for age and pachymetry only, certain parameters implied that hyperopic eyes were stiffer, while others implied that myopic eyes were stiffer, but IOPcc was significantly greater in the myopic group. The second match, which also controlled for IOPcc, showed that all biomechanical parameters implied that hyperopic eyes were stiffer. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperopic eyes demonstrated stiffer response parameters than myopic eyes. Intraocular pressure was demonstrated to be a confounding factor when evaluating ocular biomechanical parameters. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosures are listed after the references.
PURPOSE: To compare differences in the ocular biomechanical response in myopic and hyperopic eyes. SETTING: London Vision Clinic, London, United Kingdom, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States. DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: The study population included myopic and hyperopic patients evaluated preoperatively for refractive surgery at the London Vision Clinic between June 2006 and May 2008. Biomechanical response parameters from the dynamic bidirectional applanation device (Ocular Response Analyzer) were analyzed using custom software for signal analysis, including corneal hysteresis (CH) and 10 other output parameters. Hyperopic eyes were compared with myopic eyes first matched for age and pachymetry and then matched for age, pachymetry, and corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc). Nonpaired t tests were performed (P<.05) to compare parameters in the 2 groups. RESULTS: Consecutive patients included 2608 eyes with 1623 myopic eyes and 787 hyperopic eyes that met enrollment criteria. A significant correlation (P<.0001) was shown between CH and age (negative), pachymetry (positive), and IOPcc (negative). The first match included 473 eyes in each group, and the second match included 260 eyes in each group. When matching for age and pachymetry only, certain parameters implied that hyperopic eyes were stiffer, while others implied that myopic eyes were stiffer, but IOPcc was significantly greater in the myopic group. The second match, which also controlled for IOPcc, showed that all biomechanical parameters implied that hyperopic eyes were stiffer. CONCLUSIONS:Hyperopic eyes demonstrated stiffer response parameters than myopic eyes. Intraocular pressure was demonstrated to be a confounding factor when evaluating ocular biomechanical parameters. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosures are listed after the references.