Henryk Kasprzak1, Ewa Mazur2, Magdalena Widlicka3. 1. Institute of Physics, Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland. 2. Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Instrumentation, Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland. 3. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pressure curves obtained from Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) differ for the same patient in form and height. In some cases measurements on the subject show significant differences between recorded pressure curves. The purpose of the paper is to examine if the differences result from the corneal properties or from the device operation. METHODS: Examination of air pressure curves was carried out on four plano-convex glass lenses with radii of curvature close to the central corneal radius. Lenses were mounted in front of the air jet of the ORA analyzer. Series of 30 measurements on each lenses were recorded with 20 s and 60 s time interval between measurements. RESULTS were exported to computer and analyzed numerically. RESULTS: RESULTS show much higher reproducibility of pressure curves in every series of measurements in comparison to pressure curves recorded on the patients eye. This demonstrates that ORA produces air pulses with high reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in air pressure pulses for the real eye can indicate the dynamics of ocular properties during measurements. Obtained pressure curves are not symmetrical and not well fitted by Gaussian curve. Type of asymmetry of air pressure curves may be explained by viscoelasticity of air.
PURPOSE: Pressure curves obtained from Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) differ for the same patient in form and height. In some cases measurements on the subject show significant differences between recorded pressure curves. The purpose of the paper is to examine if the differences result from the corneal properties or from the device operation. METHODS: Examination of air pressure curves was carried out on four plano-convex glass lenses with radii of curvature close to the central corneal radius. Lenses were mounted in front of the air jet of the ORA analyzer. Series of 30 measurements on each lenses were recorded with 20 s and 60 s time interval between measurements. RESULTS were exported to computer and analyzed numerically. RESULTS: RESULTS show much higher reproducibility of pressure curves in every series of measurements in comparison to pressure curves recorded on the patients eye. This demonstrates that ORA produces air pulses with high reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in air pressure pulses for the real eye can indicate the dynamics of ocular properties during measurements. Obtained pressure curves are not symmetrical and not well fitted by Gaussian curve. Type of asymmetry of air pressure curves may be explained by viscoelasticity of air.