| Literature DB >> 31157217 |
Ashkan Eliasy1, Kai-Jung Chen1, Riccardo Vinciguerra1,2, Bernardo T Lopes1, Ahmed Abass1, Paolo Vinciguerra3,4, Renato Ambrósio5,6, Cynthia J Roberts7, Ahmed Elsheikh1,8,9.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to introduce and clinically validate a new algorithm that can determine the biomechanical properties of the human cornea in vivo.Entities:
Keywords: biomechanics; cornea; finite element modeling; material properties; numerical modeling
Year: 2019 PMID: 31157217 PMCID: PMC6532432 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00105
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
Figure 1Flowchart is demonstrating the process behind the analysis of built-in-house mesh generator software.
Figure 2(A) A typical finite element model showing the boundary conditions applied at the equator and corneal apex and the four model regions, each with its own material behavior. (B) Apex deformation of the numerical model during application of air-puff.
Figure 3Spatial distribution (A) and temporal variation (B) of air pressure applied by the CorVis ST on the cornea (Joda et al., 2016).
Figure 4Material biomechanical behavior where (A) stress-strain curves intersect, or (B) stress-strain curves follow similar patterns. The almost linear variation of Et and SSI with applied pressure or stress, which corresponds to the behavior patterns in (B) is depicted in (C).
Values of constants a1–a9 used in Equation (7).
| 0.3 | −3.094 | 5.249 | 8.982 | 0.248 | −8.423 | −2.416 | −0.443 | 1.704 | 2.198 |
| 0.5 | −7.731 | 22.224 | 7.699 | −17.455 | −8.806 | −1.515 | 5.361 | 2.852 | 1.471 |
| 0.7 | 0.440 | 0.387 | 4.723 | 2.974 | −5.498 | −0.403 | −1.200 | 2.386 | 0.404 |
| 0.8 | 4.509 | −10.507 | 3.013 | 12.998 | −3.028 | 0.017 | −4.315 | 1.583 | 0.002 |
| 0.9 | 7.603 | −17.995 | 0.764 | 18.971 | 0.888 | 0.297 | −5.826 | −0.114 | −0.259 |
| 1.0 | 8.047 | −18.217 | −0.500 | 18.236 | 3.236 | 0.395 | −5.235 | −1.242 | −0.336 |
| 1.5 | −8.355 | 30.668 | 1.754 | −30.649 | 0.651 | −0.519 | 11.572 | −1.163 | 0.653 |
| 2.0 | −3.101 | 16.284 | −0.219 | −18.494 | 4.480 | −0.208 | 9.073 | −3.482 | 0.508 |
| 2.5 | 4.677 | −9.969 | 3.607 | 10.742 | −1.410 | −1.504 | −1.413 | −1.463 | 1.804 |
| 3.0 | 6.842 | −16.245 | 3.244 | 17.519 | −4.064 | 0.222 | −3.391 | 1.251 | 0.092 |
CCT, central corneal thickness; SSI, stress-strain index.
Figure 5Assessment of the correlation in Dataset 1 between SSI and each of (A) bIOP, (B) CCT, and (C) age.
Figure 6Assessment of the correlation in Dataset 2 between SSI and each of (A) bIOP, (B) CCT, and (C) age.
Figure 7Relationship between SSI and age based on in-vivo clinical data (black dots and a trend black line) and ex-vivo inflation test results (red dots) for (A) Milan dataset and (B) Rio dataset.