Lauren C Beene1, Elias I Traboulsi2, Ibrahim Seven3, Matthew R Ford4, Abhijit Sinha Roy3, Robert S Butler5, William J Dupps6. 1. Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio; Center for Genetic Eye Diseases, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. 2. Center for Genetic Eye Diseases, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Ocular Biomechanics & Imaging Laboratory, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Ocular Biomechanics & Imaging Laboratory, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Ocular Biomechanics & Imaging Laboratory, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: bjdupps@sbcglobal.net.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate corneal air-puff deformation responses and ocular geometry as predictors of Marfan syndrome. DESIGN: Prospective observational clinical study. METHODS: Sixteen investigator-derived, 4 standard Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA), and geometric variables from corneal tomography and optical biometry using Oculus Pentacam and IOL Master were assessed for discriminative value in Marfan syndrome, measuring right eyes of 24 control and 13 Marfan syndrome subjects. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was assessed in univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Six investigator-derived ORA variables successfully discriminated Marfan syndrome. The best lone disease predictor was Concavity Min (Marfan syndrome 47.5 ± 20, control 69 ± 14, P = .003; AUROC = 0.80). Corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) were decreased (Marfan syndrome CH 9.45 ± 1.62, control CH 11.24 ± 1.21, P = .01; Marfan syndrome CRF 9.77 ± 1.65, control CRF 11.03 ± 1.72, P = .01) and corneas were flatter in Marfan syndrome (Marfan syndrome Kmean 41.25 ± 2.09 diopter, control Kmean 42.70 ± 1.81 diopter, P = .046). No significant differences were observed in central corneal thickness, axial eye length, or intraocular pressure. A multivariate regression model incorporating corneal curvature and hysteresis loop area (HLA) provided the best predictive value for Marfan syndrome (AUROC = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: This study describes novel biodynamic features of corneal deformation responses in Marfan syndrome, including increased deformation, decreased bending resistance, and decreased energy dissipation capacity. A predictive model incorporating HLA and corneal curvature shows greatest potential for noninvasive clinical diagnosis of Marfan syndrome.
PURPOSE: To evaluate corneal air-puff deformation responses and ocular geometry as predictors of Marfan syndrome. DESIGN: Prospective observational clinical study. METHODS: Sixteen investigator-derived, 4 standard Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA), and geometric variables from corneal tomography and optical biometry using Oculus Pentacam and IOL Master were assessed for discriminative value in Marfan syndrome, measuring right eyes of 24 control and 13 Marfan syndrome subjects. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was assessed in univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Six investigator-derived ORA variables successfully discriminated Marfan syndrome. The best lone disease predictor was Concavity Min (Marfan syndrome 47.5 ± 20, control 69 ± 14, P = .003; AUROC = 0.80). Corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) were decreased (Marfan syndrome CH 9.45 ± 1.62, control CH 11.24 ± 1.21, P = .01; Marfan syndrome CRF 9.77 ± 1.65, control CRF 11.03 ± 1.72, P = .01) and corneas were flatter in Marfan syndrome (Marfan syndrome Kmean 41.25 ± 2.09 diopter, control Kmean 42.70 ± 1.81 diopter, P = .046). No significant differences were observed in central corneal thickness, axial eye length, or intraocular pressure. A multivariate regression model incorporating corneal curvature and hysteresis loop area (HLA) provided the best predictive value for Marfan syndrome (AUROC = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: This study describes novel biodynamic features of corneal deformation responses in Marfan syndrome, including increased deformation, decreased bending resistance, and decreased energy dissipation capacity. A predictive model incorporating HLA and corneal curvature shows greatest potential for noninvasive clinical diagnosis of Marfan syndrome.
Authors: H C Dietz; G R Cutting; R E Pyeritz; C L Maslen; L Y Sakai; G M Corson; E G Puffenberger; A Hamosh; E J Nanthakumar; S M Curristin Journal: Nature Date: 1991-07-25 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: P Beighton; A de Paepe; D Danks; G Finidori; T Gedde-Dahl; R Goodman; J G Hall; D W Hollister; W Horton; V A McKusick Journal: Am J Med Genet Date: 1988-03
Authors: Ruchi Shah; Cynthia Amador; Kati Tormanen; Sean Ghiam; Mehrnoosh Saghizadeh; Vaithi Arumugaswami; Ashok Kumar; Andrei A Kramerov; Alexander V Ljubimov Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Yskert von Kodolitsch; Meike Rybczynski; Marina Vogler; Thomas S Mir; Helke Schüler; Kerstin Kutsche; Georg Rosenberger; Christian Detter; Alexander M Bernhardt; Axel Larena-Avellaneda; Tilo Kölbel; E Sebastian Debus; Malte Schroeder; Stephan J Linke; Bettina Fuisting; Barbara Napp; Anna Lena Kammal; Klaus Püschel; Peter Bannas; Boris A Hoffmann; Nele Gessler; Eva Vahle-Hinz; Bärbel Kahl-Nieke; Götz Thomalla; Christina Weiler-Normann; Gunda Ohm; Stefan Neumann; Dieter Benninghoven; Stefan Blankenberg; Reed E Pyeritz Journal: J Multidiscip Healthc Date: 2016-11-03
Authors: Tomas L White; Philip Lewis; Sally Hayes; James Fergusson; James Bell; Luis Farinha; Nick S White; Lygia V Pereira; Keith M Meek Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.799