Ke Wang1, Murray A Johnstone2, Chen Xin3, Shaozhen Song3, Steven Padilla2, Janice A Vranka4, Ted S Acott4, Kai Zhou1, Stephen A Schwaner1, Ruikang K Wang3, Todd Sulchek5, C Ross Ethier1,5. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology/Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States. 3. Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Casey Eye Institute, Portland, Oregon, United States. 5. George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to estimate human trabecular meshwork (hTM) stiffness, thought to be elevated in glaucoma, using a novel indirect approach, and to compare results with direct en face atomic force microscopy (AFM) measurements. Methods: Postmortem human eyes were perfused to measure outflow facility and identify high- and low-flow regions (HF, LF) by tracer. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) images were obtained as Schlemm's canal luminal pressure was directly manipulated. TM stiffness was deduced by an inverse finite element modeling (FEM) approach. A series of AFM forcemaps was acquired along a line traversing the anterior angle on a radially cut flat-mount corneoscleral wedge with TM facing upward. Results: The elastic modulus of normal hTM estimated by inverse FEM was 70 ± 20 kPa (mean ± SD), whereas glaucomatous hTM was slightly stiffer (98 ± 19 kPa). This trend was consistent with TM stiffnesses measured by AFM: normal hTM stiffness = 1.37 ± 0.56 kPa, which was lower than glaucomatous hTM stiffness (2.75 ± 1.19 kPa). None of these differences were statistically significant. TM in HF wedges was softer than that in LF wedges for both normal and glaucomatous eyes based on the inverse FEM approach but not by AFM. Outflow facility was significantly correlated with TM stiffness estimated by FEM in six human eyes (P = 0.018). Conclusions: TM stiffness is higher, but only modestly so, in glaucomatous patients. Outflow facility in both normal and glaucomatous human eyes appears to associate with TM stiffness. This evidence motivates further studies to investigate factors underlying TM biomechanical property regulation.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to estimate human trabecular meshwork (hTM) stiffness, thought to be elevated in glaucoma, using a novel indirect approach, and to compare results with direct en face atomic force microscopy (AFM) measurements. Methods: Postmortem human eyes were perfused to measure outflow facility and identify high- and low-flow regions (HF, LF) by tracer. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) images were obtained as Schlemm's canal luminal pressure was directly manipulated. TM stiffness was deduced by an inverse finite element modeling (FEM) approach. A series of AFM forcemaps was acquired along a line traversing the anterior angle on a radially cut flat-mount corneoscleral wedge with TM facing upward. Results: The elastic modulus of normal hTM estimated by inverse FEM was 70 ± 20 kPa (mean ± SD), whereas glaucomatous hTM was slightly stiffer (98 ± 19 kPa). This trend was consistent with TM stiffnesses measured by AFM: normal hTM stiffness = 1.37 ± 0.56 kPa, which was lower than glaucomatous hTM stiffness (2.75 ± 1.19 kPa). None of these differences were statistically significant. TM in HF wedges was softer than that in LF wedges for both normal and glaucomatous eyes based on the inverse FEM approach but not by AFM. Outflow facility was significantly correlated with TM stiffness estimated by FEM in six human eyes (P = 0.018). Conclusions: TM stiffness is higher, but only modestly so, in glaucomatouspatients. Outflow facility in both normal and glaucomatous human eyes appears to associate with TM stiffness. This evidence motivates further studies to investigate factors underlying TM biomechanical property regulation.
Authors: Julie A Last; Tingrui Pan; Yuzhe Ding; Christopher M Reilly; Kate Keller; Ted S Acott; Michael P Fautsch; Christopher J Murphy; Paul Russell Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Amir Vahabikashi; Ariel Gelman; Biqin Dong; Lihua Gong; Elliott D K Cha; Margit Schimmel; Ernst R Tamm; Kristin Perkumas; W Daniel Stamer; Cheng Sun; Hao F Zhang; Haiyan Gong; Mark Johnson Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Murray Johnstone; Chen Xin; James Tan; Elizabeth Martin; Joanne Wen; Ruikang K Wang Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Tia J Kowal; Philipp P Prosseda; Ke Ning; Biao Wang; Jorge Alvarado; Brent E Sendayen; Sayena Jabbehdari; W Daniel Stamer; Yang Hu; Yang Sun Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Ted S Acott; Janice A Vranka; Kate E Keller; VijayKrishna Raghunathan; Mary J Kelley Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 21.198