Modelado por elementos finitos de la cabeza del nervio óptico y aplicación a la simulación del glaucoma

Los objetivos principales del proyecto son desarrollar un modelo de elementos finitos que reproduzca el comportamiento de la cabeza del nervio óptico y aplicar dicho modelo al estudio y análisis de la influencia de la geometría en el desarrollo del glaucoma. Para ello se han seguido los siguientes pasos: 1. Revisión bibliográfica para determinar la geometría del modelo y el comportamiento de los tejidos que lo forman. 2. Reproducir la geometría de la cabeza del nervio óptico y realizar el mallado por elementos finitos de los diferentes tejidos que lo componen con el software I-DEAS, probando diferentes métodos para obtener la malla más adecuada. Se han realizado dos modelos distintos, uno sano y otro glaucomatoso. 3. Tras el mallado de los dos modelos, se ha creado un archivo de entrada para el cálculo en Abaqus que incluye la malla exportada por I-DEAS, las condiciones de contorno a aplicar a la cabeza del nervio y las tres PIO a aplicar en nuestro modelo. 4. Se ha realizado el cálculo en Abaqus, analizado los resultados de tensiones, deformaciones y desplazamientos. 5. Tras los resultados se ha hecho una interpretación clínica de los mismos, revisando Bibliografía, con el fin de comparar, contrastar y confrontar los resultados y conclusiones obtenidas

Diseño y desarrollo de marquesina y poste de parada para entornos de montaña

El proyecto consiste en el diseño y desarrollo de una marquesina para una parada de autobús, así como el poste informativo de parada para un entorno de montaña utilizando el material WOOD PLASTIC, acorde con el entorno en cuanto a estética y mantenimiento. El proyecto deberá cumplir la normativa aplicable y estará condicionado por los procesos de fabricación de extrusión e inyección, además de por aquellas piezas comerciales que sean necesarias para la completa definición del producto. Se trabajará con un programa CAD para el diseño del concepto a desarrollar. Posteriormente se procederá a actualizar el diseño según se realizan los estudios de simulaciones resistentes mediante FEM. Por último, se simulará mediante MOLDFLOW la inyección de la pieza de inyección de mayor tamaño del proyecto y se estimarán los costes.<br /

Corneal biomechanical parameters and central corneal thickness in glaucoma patients, glaucoma suspects, and a healthy population

Purpose: To evaluate and compare corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), and central corneal thickness (CCT), measurements were taken between a healthy population (controls), patients diagnosed with glaucoma (DG), and glaucoma suspect patients due to ocular hypertension (OHT), family history of glaucoma (FHG), or glaucoma-like optic discs (GLD). Additionally, Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (IOPg) and corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc) were compared between the different groups of patients. Methods: In this prospective analytical-observational study, a total of 1065 patients (one eye of each) were recruited to undergo Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) testing, ultrasound pachymetry, and clinical examination. Corneal biomechanical parameters (CH, CRF), CCT, IOPg, and IOPcc were measured in the control group (n = 574) and the other groups: DG (n = 147), FHG (n = 78), GLD (n = 90), and OHT (n = 176). We performed a variance analysis (ANOVA) for all the dependent variables according to the different diagnostic categories with multiple comparisons to identify the differences between the diagnostic categories, deeming p < 0.05 as statistically significant. Results: The mean CH in the DG group (9.69 mmHg) was significantly lower compared to controls (10.75 mmHg; mean difference 1.05, p < 0.001), FHG (10.70 mmHg; mean difference 1.00, p < 0.05), GLD (10.63 mmHg; mean difference 0.93, p < 0.05) and OHT (10.54 mmHg; mean difference 0.84, p < 0.05). No glaucoma suspects (FHG, GLD, OHT groups) presented significant differences between themselves and the control group (p = 1.00). No statistically significant differences were found in the mean CRF between DG (11.18 mmHg) and the control group (10.75 mmHg; mean difference 0.42, p = 0.40). The FHG and OHT groups showed significantly higher mean CRF values (12.32 and 12.41 mmHg, respectively) than the DG group (11.18 mmHg), with mean differences of 1.13 (p < 0.05) and 1.22 (p < 0.001), respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in CCT in the analysis between DG (562 μ) and the other groups (control = 556 μ, FHG = 576 μ, GLD = 569 μ, OHT = 570 μ). The means of IOPg and IOPcc values were higher in the DG patient and suspect groups than in the control group, with statistically significant differences in all groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study presents corneal biomechanical values (CH, CRF), CCT, IOPg, and IOPcc for diagnosed glaucoma patients, three suspected glaucoma groups, and a healthy population, using the ORA. Mean CH values were markedly lower in the DG group (diagnosed with glaucoma damage) compared to the other groups. No significant difference was found in CCT between the DG and control groups. Unexpectedly, CRF showed higher values in all groups than in the control group, but the difference was only statistically significant in the suspect groups (FHG, GLD, and OHT), not in the DG group

Corneal Hysteresis and Corneal Thickness in Glaucoma 2 Patients, Glaucoma Suspects and a Healthy Population

Purpose: To evaluate and compare corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), and central corneal thickness (CCT), measurements were taken between a healthy population (controls), patients diagnosed with glaucoma (DG), and glaucoma suspect patients due to ocular hypertension (OHT), family history of glaucoma (FHG), or glaucoma-like optic discs (GLD). Additionally, Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (IOPg) and corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc) were compared between the different groups of patients. Methods: In this prospective analyticalobservational study, a total of 1065 patients (one eye of each) were recruited to undergo Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) testing, ultrasound pachymetry, and clinical examination. Corneal biomechanical parameters (CH, CRF), CCT, IOPg, and IOPcc were measured in the control group (n = 574) and the other groups: DG (n = 147), FHG (n = 78), GLD (n = 90), and OHT (n = 176). We performed a variance analysis (ANOVA) for all the dependent variables according to the different diagnostic categories with multiple comparisons to identify the differences between the diagnostic categories, deeming p < 0.05 as statistically significant. Results: The mean CH in the DG group (9.69 mmHg) was significantly lower compared to controls (10.75 mmHg; mean difference 1.05, p < 0.001), FHG (10.70 mmHg; mean difference 1.00, p < 0.05), GLD (10.63 mmHg; mean difference 0.93, p < 0.05) and OHT (10.54 mmHg; mean difference 0.84, p < 0.05). No glaucoma suspects (FHG, GLD, OHT groups) presented significant differences between themselves and the control group (p = 1.00). No statistically significant differences were found in the mean CRF between DG (11.18 mmHg) and the control group (10.75 mmHg; mean difference 0.42, p = 0.40). The FHG and OHT groups showed significantly higher mean CRF values (12.32 and 12.41 mmHg, respectively) than the DG group (11.18 mmHg), with mean differences of 1.13 (p < 0.05) and 1.22 (p < 0.001), respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in CCT in the analysis between DG (562 µ) and the other groups (control = 556 µ, FHG = 576 µ, GLD = 569 µ, OHT = 570 µ). The means of IOPg and IOPcc values were higher in the DG patient and suspect groups than in the control group, with statistically significant differences in all groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study presents corneal biomechanical values (CH, CRF), CCT, IOPg, and IOPcc for diagnosed glaucoma patients, three suspected glaucoma groups, and a healthy population, using the ORA. Mean CH values were markedly lower in the DG group (diagnosed with glaucoma damage) compared to the other groups. No significant difference was found in CCT between the DG and control groups. Unexpectedly, CRF showed higher values in all groups than in the control group, but the difference was only statistically significant in the suspect groups (FHG, GLD, and OHT), not in the DG group.Medicin