| Literature DB >> 34928468 |
Stefan Muench1, Mike Roellig1, Daniel Balzani2.
Abstract
This paper proposes a new method for in vivo and almost real-time identification of biomechanical properties of the human cornea based on non-contact tonometer data. Further goal is to demonstrate the method's functionality based on synthetic data serving as reference. For this purpose, a finite element model of the human eye is constructed to synthetically generate full-field displacements from different data sets with keratoconus-like degradations. Then, a new approach based on the equilibrium gap method combined with a mechanical morphing approach is proposed and used to identify the material parameters from virtual test data sets. In a further step, random absolute noise is added to the virtual test data to investigate the sensitivity of the new approach to noise. As a result, the proposed method shows a relevant accuracy in identifying material parameters based on full-field displacements. At the same time, the method turns out to work almost in real time (order of a few minutes on a regular workstation) and is thus much faster than inverse problems solved by typical forward approaches. On the other hand, the method shows a noticeable sensitivity to rather small noise amplitudes rendering the method not accurate enough for the precise identification of individual parameter values. However, analysis show that the accuracy is sufficient for the identification of property ranges which might be related to diseased tissues. Thereby, the proposed approach turns out promising with view to diagnostic purposes.Entities:
Keywords: Cornea; Inverse problems; Keratoconus; Non-contact tonometer; Unique identification
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34928468 PMCID: PMC8940849 DOI: 10.1007/s10237-021-01541-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomech Model Mechanobiol ISSN: 1617-7940
Fig. 1FE model of the eye. Lens and hydrostatic fluid elements are hidden for clarity. The geometric parameters are based on values according to (Woo et al. 1972a)
Fig. 2Comparison of the lens (1) in the FE model with the typical lens geometry (4) according to (Freyler 1985). The lens separates the interior of the eye into the anterior and posterior chamber volume (2) and the volume of the vitreous body (3)
Fig. 3Plate rigidity of the individual layers of the cornea in logarithmic scaling. The error bars result from the ranges of variation of layer thickness and elastic modulus in the literature
Inversely calculated material parameters from the literature and calculation of the resulting parameter . in—in vivo, ex—ex vivo, d—indentation, i—inflation, k—keratectomy, t—tensile test
| Publication | Exper. basis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alastrué et al. ( | 0.075 | 0.005 | 0 | 0.005 | 0.0049 | 103 | Ex/i (Bryant and McDonnell |
| Pandolfi and Manganiello ( | 5.500 | 1.055 7.555 0.00505 0.055 | − 1.0455 7.550 − 0.005 − 0.005 | 0.0005 0.005 0.00005 0.050 | 0.250 0.175 0.055 0.055 | 50 15 16 14 | Ex/t (Bryant et al. Ex/t (Hoeltzel et al. Ex/t (Zeng et al. Ex/t (Wollensak et al. |
| Petsche and Pinsky ( | – | 0.00559 | – | 0.00559 | 0.638 | 314 | in/d |
| Sánchez et al. | 5.500 | 0.060 0.090 | − 0.010 − 0.020 | 0.050 0.070 | 0.040 | 200 | in/k |
| Reference values (healthy) | 10 | 0.275 | 0 | 0.275 | 0.040 | 200 |
Summary of the material parameters assigned to the simulation model
| Component | Material model | Property |
|---|---|---|
| Cornea | Anisotropic, hyperelastic, incompressible | |
| Limbus | Isotropic, linear–elastic, incompressible | |
| Sclera | Isotropic, linear–elastic, incompressible | |
| Lens | Isotropic, linear–elastic, incompressible | |
| Aqueous humor | Incompressible |
Fig. 4a Process diagram of the transformation of measurement data (geometry, IOP, deformation contours) into the input data required for the inverse method (stress-free geometry, IOP including the IOP change, full-field displacement) using the mechanical morphing approach and b illustration of the principle of the mechanical morphing approach. Virtual stamps force the corneal model to deform
Fig. 5a Comparison of the simulated deformation behavior with the deformation states of the cornea recorded by Corvis® ST in sectional view according (Long et al. 2015) and b the calculated profile of the intraocular pressures in the anterior chamber and vitreous body as a function of the deflection amplitude
Results calculated with the FE model at the time of maximum indentation depth for the 4 predefined material sets
| Material set | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy | 4.870 ± 0.108 | 23.264 | 19.564 | |
| KK-I | 5.068 ± 0.108 | 23.792 | 19.781 | |
| KK-II | 5.061 ± 0.108 | 23.989 | 19.864 | |
| KK-III | 5.047 ± 0.108 | 24.412 | 20.052 |
Comparison of the linear material parameters identified inversely for different deformation states to the reference values for a constant
Fig. 6a Evolution of the linear material parameters as a function of the nonlinear parameter and b evolution of the error criterion according to Eq. (14) over
Fig. 7Inversely identified material parameters of the 4 reference data sets. The diagram shows the ± 10% deviation band from the reference value (orange)
Fig. 8Inversely identified material parameters from the healthy material set as a function of the applied random noise. The diagram contains the ± 10% deviation band to the reference value (orange) as well as the twofold standard deviations determined from 10 repetitions as error bars
Fig. 9inverse determined material parameters for the four test cases H, KK-I, KK-II and KK-III as well as the ± 10% deviation band to the reference value (orange)
Coefficients of the pressure load describing function Eq. (15) as published in (Muench et al. 2019)
| Coeff. | Cornea deformation states | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unit | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
| mm2 | 0 | 0.11 | 0.32 | 0.54 | 0.82 | 1.28 | 1.61 | 2.04 | 2.51 | 2.94 | 3.38 | |
| % | 86.7 | 87.0 | 88.9 | 89.1 | 90.3 | 91.5 | 92.3 | 92.8 | 93.5 | 93.8 | 94.5 | |
| Pa | 25 300 | |||||||||||
| 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.51 | 0.45 | 0.44 | 0.42 | 0.38 | ||
| 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.72 | 0.66 | 0.63 | 0.61 | 0.59 | 0.52 | ||
| Pa | 0 | 0 | 636 | 874 | 1756 | 2553 | 3137 | 3024 | 3137 | 3485 | 3853 | |
| – | 0 | 0 | 18.3 | 6.23 | 7.41 | 8.86 | 9.18 | 6.18 | 7.94 | 8.85 | 8.55 | |
| mm | 0 | 0 | 2.13 | 2.05 | 1.91 | 1.84 | 1.75 | 1.75 | 1.82 | 1.86 | 1.74 | |
| Pa | 5219 | 5234 | 5120 | 5111 | 5095 | 4976 | 5003 | 5002 | 4958 | 4914 | 4845 | |
| – | 1.43 | 1.45 | 1.96 | 2.32 | 2.23 | 1.20 | 0.98 | 0.56 | 0.48 | 0.40 | 0.29 | |
| 1.58 | 7.47 | 6.89 | 7.49 | 10.5 | 23.8 | 38.1 | 86.8 | 131 | 244 | 333 | ||
| 0.71 | 0.69 | 0.50 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.82 | 1.03 | 1.81 | 2.16 | 2.64 | 3.73 | ||
| mm | 4.7 | |||||||||||
Coefficients of the shear stress describing function Eq. (16) as published in (Muench et al. 2019)
| Coeff. | Cornea deformation states | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unit | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
| mm2 | 0 | 0.11 | 0.32 | 0.54 | 0.82 | 1.28 | 1.61 | 2.04 | 2.51 | 2.94 | 3.38 | |
| % | 95.0 | 95.1 | 95.1 | 95.2 | 95.1 | 95.2 | 95.4 | 95.7 | 95.9 | 96.2 | 96.2 | |
| Pa | 89.6 | 64.3 | 131 | 140 | 144 | 241 | 260 | 172 | 175 | 185 | 150 | |
| 11.4 | 5.4 | 15.2 | 18.4 | 17.6 | 21.8 | 28.0 | 12.8 | 12.9 | 17.3 | 13.4 | ||
| 22.4 | 12.3 | 35.4 | 41.0 | 38.0 | 48.7 | 59.1 | 30.6 | 30.4 | 37.7 | 31.1 | ||
| – | 2.23 | 2.44 | 2.30 | 2.21 | 2.26 | 2.39 | 2.29 | 2.56 | 2.59 | 2.46 | 2.52 | |
| Pa | 169 | 192 | 145 | 143 | 145 | 85 | 111 | 135 | 136 | 140 | 159 | |
| 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.31 | 1.58 | 0.49 | 0.80 | 1.16 | 1.51 | 1.06 | ||
| 0.44 | 0.34 | 0.36 | 0.39 | 0.50 | 1.81 | 0.52 | 1.03 | 1.47 | 1.84 | 1.31 | ||
| mm | 1.12 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.93 | 1.10 | 2.50 | 1.47 | 1.90 | 2.45 | 2.84 | 2.41 | |
| 2.41 | 1.19 | 0.91 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 1.00 | 0.87 | 1.06 | 1.75 | 1.79 | 2.47 | ||
| 2.41 | 1.26 | 1.23 | 1.11 | 1.05 | 1.45 | 1.30 | 1.35 | 2.66 | 2.90 | 4.61 | ||