Corneal Biomechanical Assessment with Ultra-High-Speed Scheimpflug Imaging During Non-Contact Tonometry: A Prospective Review

Intraocular lens power calculation: angle κ and ocular biomechanics

PURPOSE

To study the effect of ocular biomechanics on the prediction error of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

SETTING

Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, Porto, Portugal.

DESIGN

Prospective longitudinal study.

METHODS

This study included 67 subjects. Before cataract surgery subjects underwent biometry with IOLMaster 700 and biomechanical analysis with Corvis Scheimpflug technology. The targeted spherical equivalent was calculated with SRK-T and Barrett Universal II. Associations between prediction error (PE), absolute prediction error (AE), and biometric and biomechanical parameters were performed with stepwise multivariate linear correlation analysis.

RESULTS

Using the SRKT formula, there was association between PE and Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI, B = -0.531, P = .011) and between AE and the horizontal offset between the center of the pupil and the visual axis (angle κ, B = -0.274, P = .007). Considering the Barret Universal II formula, PE was independently associated with anterior chamber depth ( B = -0.279, P = .021) and CBI ( B = -0.520, P = .013) and AE was associated with angle κ ( B = -0.370, P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

A large angle κ may reduce the predictability of IOL power calculation. Ocular biomechanics likely influence the refractive outcomes after IOL implantation. This study showed that eyes with softer corneal biomechanics had more myopic PE. This may relate to anteriorization of the effective lens position. Dynamic measurements may be the way to progress into future formulas.

Corneal Biomechanics in Non-infectious Uveitis Measured by Corvis ST: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To assess differences between corneal biomechanical properties in patients with non-infectious uveitis and healthy subjects using CorVis.

METHODS

77 patients with non-infectious uveitis and 47 control subjects were recruited. Biomechanical parameters were measured: deformation amplitude (DA), A-1 length and A-2 length (L1, L2), A-1 velocity and A-2 velocity (V1, V2), peak distance (PD) and HC radius (highest concavity radius). AUC ROC and correlation between clinical variables and biomechanical properties were determined.

RESULTS

Lower HC Radius and IOPb and higher DA and V1 was found in uveitis group. Statistical differences between cases using systemic medications and those with topical treatment were found in L1. Differences were showed between those cases with active and inactive uveitis in PD, DA, V2 and L2. The biomechanical parameter with the best discriminatory capacity of uveitis disease was HC Radius.

CONCLUSION

Differences in corneal biomechanical properties between non-infectious uveitis and healthy eyes were found.

Corneal Biomechanics After SMILE, Femtosecond-Assisted LASIK, and Photorefractive Keratectomy: A Matched Comparison Study

Purpose

To evaluate the change in corneal stiffness after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

Methods

Age, gender, spherical equivalent, and central corneal thickness (CCT)-matched cases undergoing SMILE with a 120-µ cap, FS-LASIK with a 110-µ flap, and PRK were enrolled. One-year change in the stress-strain index, stiffness parameter at first applanation, integrated inverse radius, deformation amplitude ratio at 2 mm, and deformation amplitude ratio at 1 mm were compared between the surgical groups by linear mixed-effect models.

Results

Within each surgical group, 120 eyes completed 1 year of follow-up. The residual stromal bed (RSB) thickness and (RSB/CCTpostop) were 348.1 ± 35.0 (0.74), 375.4 ± 31.0 (0.77) and 426.7 ± 2 µm (0.88) after SMILE, FS-LASIK, and PRK, respectively. The 1-year change in all biomechanical indices was significant, except the stress-strain index with PRK (P = 0.884). The change in all indices with SMILE were significantly greater than with FS-LASIK and with PRK (all P < 0.01), except the deformation amplitude ratio at 1 mm change between SMILE and FS-LASIK (P = 0.075). The changes in all indices with FS-LASIK were significantly greater than with PRK (all P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Although SMILE preserves the greatest amount of anterior cornea with a cap thickness of 120 µ, this also produces the smallest RSB and the greatest decrease in stiffness. Thus, the RSB is shown to be the predominant determinant of stiffness decreases, rather than the preserved anterior cornea. We recommend using a thinner cap to achieve a thicker RSB and a lesser decrease in the corneal stiffness in the SMILE procedure.

Translational Relevance

After refractive surgery, RSB is predominant determinant of stiffness decreases, rather than the preserved anterior cornea.

Assessment of corneal biomechanics in anisometropia using Scheimpflug technology

Purpose: To investigate the relationship between corneal biomechanical and ocular biometric parameters, and to explore biomechanical asymmetry between anisometropic eyes using the corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology device (Corvis ST). Methods: 180 anisometropic participants were included. Participants were divided into low (1.00≤△Spherical equivalent (SE) < 2.00D), moderate (2.00D≤△SE < 3.00D) and high (△SE ≥ 3.00D) anisometropic groups. Axial length (AL), keratometry, anterior chamber depth (ACD) and corneal biomechanical parameters were assessed using the OA-2000 biometer, Pentacam HR and Corvis ST, respectively. Results: The mean age of participants was 16.09 ± 5.64 years. Stress-Strain Index (SSI) was positively correlated with SE (r = 0.501, p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with AL (r = -0.436, p < 0.001). Some other Corvis ST parameters had weak correlation with SE or AL. Corneal biomechanical parameters except for time of first applanation (A1T), length of second applanation (A2L), deformation amplitude (DA), first applanation stiffness parameter (SPA1) and ambrosia relational thickness-horizontal (ARTh) were correlated with ametropic parameters (SE or AL) in multiple regression analyses. A1T, velocity of first applanation (A1V), time of second applanation (A2T), A2L, velocity of second applanation (A2V), corneal curvature radius at highest concavity (HCR), peak distance (PD), DA, deformation amplitude ratio max (2 mm) (DAR), SPA1, integrated radius (IR), and SSI showed significant differences between fellow eyes (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in asymmetry of corneal biomechanics among the three groups (p > 0.05). Asymmetry of some biomechanical parameters had weak correlation with asymmetry of mean corneal curvatures and ACD. However, asymmetry of corneal biomechanical parameters was not correlated with asymmetry of SE or AL (p > 0.05). Conclusion: More myopic eyes had weaker biomechanical properties than the contralateral eye in anisometropia. However, a certain linear relationship between anisometropia and biomechanical asymmetry was not found.