| Literature DB >> 26693165 |
Ahmed Elsheikh1, Charles W McMonnies2, Charles Whitford3, Gavin C Boneham2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cornea is responsible for two-thirds of the eye's refractive power which is a function of the shape and refractive index. The aim of this present study is to examine human eyes in vivo for corneal shape changes in response to short-term elevation in intraocular pressure.Entities:
Keywords: Corneal biomechanics; Numerical simulation; Topography
Year: 2015 PMID: 26693165 PMCID: PMC4676159 DOI: 10.1186/s40662-015-0029-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eye Vis (Lond) ISSN: 2326-0254
Error of fit with Zernike polynomials with orders between 3 and 8 for central maps and combining central and peripheral maps together
| Zernike RMS of error (μm) | Map combination RMS of error (μm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zernike order | Whole central map | Reduced area of central mapa | Whole maps | Reduced area maps* |
| 3 | 9.5 ± 5.6 | 4.2 ± 2.2 | 14.1 ± 9.9 | 9.0 ± 6.3 |
| 4 | 2.9 ± 3.2 | 0.8 ± 1.4 | 11.6 ± 8.9 | 7.6 ± 6.7 |
| 5 | 2.4 ± 2.4 | 0.6 ± 1.5 | 11.5 ± 9.2 | 7.2 ± 7.1 |
| 6 | 1.9 ± 1.6 | 0.6 ± 1.2 | 11.6 ± 7.8 | 6.6 ± 6.0 |
| 7 | 1.8 ± 1.6 | 0.8 ± 0.7 | 10.6 ± 7.2 | 5.1 ± 3.6 |
| 8 | 1.5 ± 1.2 | 0.5 ± 0.4 | 10.1 ± 5.6 | 4.5 ± 2.4 |
a Area of maps excluding data contained with an edge area with 0.8 mm width
Fig. 1Combining central and peripheral maps – xo and yo are assumed displacement shifts in x and y directions
Fig. 2Fit between a central topography map and a peripheral map in a cross-sectional view
Fig. 3Example of measured corneal topography in its Cartesian form after the peripheral and central maps has been matched
Fig. 4Cross-section of a numerical model of the eye globe. Model constructed with 100 element rings, 17 of which are in the cornea and 4 layers; providing 1, 2 and 1 layer/s for the epithelium, stroma and endothelium, respectively
Individual increases in IOP for the 7 Subjects
| Subject | Gender | Age (years) | Baseline IOP (mmHg) | Post ODM IOP (mmHg) | % Increase |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | 21 | 12.2 | 27.4 | 124.6 |
| 2 | M | 17 | 13.1 | 22.3 | 70.5 |
| 3 | M | 47 | 14.7 | 31.2 | 112.2 |
| 4 | M | 68 | 24.4 | 42.6 | 74.6 |
| 5 | M | 43 | 17.1 | 32.7 | 91.2 |
| 6 | F | 50 | 13.3 | 29.5 | 121.8 |
| 7 | F | 30 | 20.7 | 40.5 | 95.7 |
| Average | 39.4 | 16.5 | 32.3 | 98.7 | |
| SD | 17.9 | 4.5 | 7.1 | 21.7 |
IOP = Intraocular pressure, ODM = ophthalmodynamometer
Fig. 5Elevation data presented as percentage values of maximum elevation. a Experimental data for all seven corneas. b Numerical data assuming uniform corneal stiffness for all seven corneas. c Comparison between average experimental and uniform-stiffness numerical data. d Comparison between average experimental and non-uniform stiffness numerical data with error bars depicting standard deviation values – light lines show individual results while heavy lines depict average distributions
Differences in corneal elevation between the experimental and numerical data as obtained from uniform-stiffness and non-uniform-stiffness simulations
| Participant | Simulations based on uniform stiffness distribution | Simulations based on non-uniform stiffness distribution |
|---|---|---|
| (μm) | (μm) | |
| 1 | 11.1 ± 7.4 (0.1–20.9, 13.0 %) | 0.5 ± 0.4 (0.0–1.4, 0.5 %) |
| 2 | 10.2 ± 7.0 (0.2–20.7, 11.0 %) | 3.4 ± 3.3 (0.1–8.7, 3.6 %) |
| 3 | 6.3 ± 4.7 (0.5–12.7, 8.1 %) | 1.4 ± 1.0 (0.2–2.8, 1.8 %) |
| 4 | 2.4 ± 2.2 (0.1–6.3, 4.2 %) | 0.8 ± 0.5 (0.0–1.4, 1.4 %) |
| 5 | 9.8 ± 6.4 (0.2–17.6, 12.2 %) | 1.5 ± 1.5 (0.1–4.6, 1.8 %) |
| 6 | 6.0 ± 4.6 (0.1–12.4, 9.0 %) | 0.3 ± 0.4 (0.0–1.5, 0.5 %) |
| 7 | 6.9 ± 4.5 (0.1–12.3, 13.6 %) | 0.8 ± 0.7 (0.1–2.3, 1.6 %) |
Results include the average, standard deviation and range in microns, and the average as a percentage of the maximum experimental corneal elevation for each eye
Fig. 6Example of a match between the experimental elevation data (following IOP increase). The numerical predictions are presented after adjustment of stiffness distributions for Participant 1. a Comparisons of corneal deformation. b Comparisons of corneal topography along the temporal-nasal center-line
Fig. 7Corneal stiffness distributions as obtained numerically for all 7 participants. a individual participants. b average distribution for all participants with error bars representing the values of standard deviations