Mohammad-Reza Sedaghat1, Hamed Momeni-Moghaddam2, Abbas Azimi3,4, Zohreh Fakhimi3, Mohammed Ziaei5, Zeynad Danesh3, Cynthia J Roberts6, Naeemeh Monfared3, Alireza Jamali7. 1. Eye Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. 2. Health Promotion Research Center, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran. 3. Department of Optometry, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. 4. Refractive Errors Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, New Zealand National Eye Centre, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 6. Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Biomedical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States. 7. Department of Optometry, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate corneal biomechanical response parameters in varying degrees of myopia and their correlation with corneal geometrical parameters and axial length. Methods: In this prospective cross-sectional study, 172 eyes of 172 subjects, the severity degree of myopia was categorized into mild, moderate, severe, and extreme myopia. Cycloplegic refraction, corneal tomography using Pentacam HR, corneal biomechanical assessment using Corvis ST and Ocular Response Analyser (ORA), and ocular biometry using IOLMaster 700 were performed for all subjects. A general linear model was used to compare biomechanical parameters in various degrees of myopia, while central corneal thickness (CCT) and biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure (bIOP) were considered as covariates. Multiple linear regression was used to investigate the relationship between corneal biomechanical parameters with spherical equivalent (SE), axial length (AXL), bIOP, mean keratometry (Mean KR), and CCT. Results: Corneal biomechanical parameters assessed by Corvis ST that showed significant differences among the groups were second applanation length (AL2, p = 0.035), highest concavity radius (HCR, p < 0.001), deformation amplitude (DA, p < 0.001), peak distance (PD, p = 0.022), integrated inverse radius (IR, p < 0.001) and DA ratio (DAR, p = 0.004), while there were no significant differences in the means of pressure-derived parameters of ORA between groups. Multiple regression analysis showed all parameters of Corvis ST have significant relationships with level of myopia (SE, AXL, Mean KR), except AL1 and AL2. Significant biomechanical parameters showed progressive reduction in corneal stiffness with increasing myopia (either with greater negative SE or greater AXL), independent of IOP and CCT. Also, corneal hysteresis (CH) or ability to dissipate energy from the ORA decreased with increasing level of myopia. Conclusions: Dynamic corneal response assessed by Corvis ST shows evidence of biomechanical changes consistent with decreasing stiffness with increasing levels of myopia in multiple parameters. The strongest correlations were with highest concavity parameters where the sclera influence is maximal.
Purpose: To investigate corneal biomechanical response parameters in varying degrees of myopia and their correlation with corneal geometrical parameters and axial length. Methods: In this prospective cross-sectional study, 172 eyes of 172 subjects, the severity degree of myopia was categorized into mild, moderate, severe, and extreme myopia. Cycloplegic refraction, corneal tomography using Pentacam HR, corneal biomechanical assessment using Corvis ST and Ocular Response Analyser (ORA), and ocular biometry using IOLMaster 700 were performed for all subjects. A general linear model was used to compare biomechanical parameters in various degrees of myopia, while central corneal thickness (CCT) and biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure (bIOP) were considered as covariates. Multiple linear regression was used to investigate the relationship between corneal biomechanical parameters with spherical equivalent (SE), axial length (AXL), bIOP, mean keratometry (Mean KR), and CCT. Results:Corneal biomechanical parameters assessed by Corvis ST that showed significant differences among the groups were second applanation length (AL2, p = 0.035), highest concavity radius (HCR, p < 0.001), deformation amplitude (DA, p < 0.001), peak distance (PD, p = 0.022), integrated inverse radius (IR, p < 0.001) and DA ratio (DAR, p = 0.004), while there were no significant differences in the means of pressure-derived parameters of ORA between groups. Multiple regression analysis showed all parameters of Corvis ST have significant relationships with level of myopia (SE, AXL, Mean KR), except AL1 and AL2. Significant biomechanical parameters showed progressive reduction in corneal stiffness with increasing myopia (either with greater negative SE or greater AXL), independent of IOP and CCT. Also, corneal hysteresis (CH) or ability to dissipate energy from the ORA decreased with increasing level of myopia. Conclusions: Dynamic corneal response assessed by Corvis ST shows evidence of biomechanical changes consistent with decreasing stiffness with increasing levels of myopia in multiple parameters. The strongest correlations were with highest concavity parameters where the sclera influence is maximal.