O uso de lágrimas artificiais em pacientes com glaucoma: um estudo retrospectivo e comparativo

PURPOSE: To evaluate the need for artificial tears by glaucoma patients under topical hypotensive treatment and to identify risk factors associated with it. METHODS: The charts of 175 glaucoma patients under medical treatment and 175 age-matched controls were reviewed. Age, gender, use of artificial tears, number of glaucoma medications used, and duration of treatment were recorded. RESULTS: Significantly more glaucoma patients (n=92; 52.6%) used artificial tears compared to age-matched controls (n=31; 17.7%) (p<0.001). Significantly more females (n=81; 39%) than males (n=42; 28.9%) used artificial tears (p=0.036). When the whole population was analyzed, female gender (OR=1.63) and the presence of glaucoma (OR= 5.14) were risk factors for the use of artificial tears (p<0.05). When the glaucoma population was analyzed, female gender (OR=2.57), number of medications &gt;2 (OR=1.92), and duration of treatment &gt;5 years (OR=2.93) were risk factors for the use of artificial tears (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Topical treatment with antiglaucoma medication is a risk factor for the use of artificial tears. Female gender and long-term treatment of glaucoma with two or more medications were aggravating factors for the need for artificial tears.OBJETIVO: Avaliar a necessidade do uso de lágrimas artificiais por pacientes com glaucoma recebendo tratamento medicamentoso e identificar fatores de risco associados ao seu uso. MÉTODOS: Os prontuários de 175 pacientes com glaucoma sob tratamento medicamentoso e de 175 controles pareados por idade foram revistos. Os seguintes dados foram registrados: idade, sexo, uso de lágrimas artificiais, número de medicações antiglaucomatosas e duração do tratamento do glaucoma. RESULTADOS: Um número significativamente maior de pacientes com glaucoma (n=92; 52,6%) usava lágrimas artificiais em relação ao grupo controle (n=31; 17,7%) (p<0,001). Um número significativamente maior de mulheres (n=81; 39%) usava lágrimas artificias em relação aos homens (n=42; 28,9%) (p=0,036). Quando a população foi analisada como um todo, sexo feminino (OR=1,63) e presença de glaucoma (OR=5,14) foram fatores de risco para o uso de lágrimas artificiais (p<0,05). Quando apenas a população de glaucomatosos foi analisada, número de medicações &gt;2 (OR=1,92) e duração do tratamento &gt;5 anos (OR=2,93) foram fatores de risco para o uso de lágrimas artificiais (p<0,05). CONCLUSÕES: O tratamento com colírios antiglaucomatosos é um fator de risco para o uso de lágrimas artificiais. Sexo feminino e tratamento a longo prazo com duas ou mais medicações são fatores de risco adicionais para o uso de lágrimas artificiais.6

Parâmetros biomecânicos derivados da forma da curva do ORA para discriminar olhos normais de ceratocones

PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA; Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Buffalo, NY) to distinguish between normal and keratoconic eyes, by comparing pressure and waveform signal-derived parameters. METHODS: This retrospective comparative case series study included 112 patients with normal corneas and 41 patients with bilateral keratoconic eyes. One eye from each subject was randomly selected for analysis. Keratoconus diagnosis was based on clinical examinations, including Placido disk-based corneal topography and rotating Scheimpflug corneal tomography. Data from the ORA best waveform score (WS) measurements were extracted using ORA software. Corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), Goldman-correlated intraocular pressure (IOPg), cornea-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc), and 37 parameters derived from the waveform signal were analyzed. Differences in the distributions among the groups were assessed using the Mann-Whitney test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between keratoconic and normal eyes were found in all parameters (p<0.05) except IOPcc and W1. The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was greater than 0.85 for 11 parameters, including CH (0.852) and CRF (0.895). The parameters related to the area under the waveform peak during the second and first applanations (p2area and p1area) had the best performances, with AUROCs of 0.939 and 0.929, respectively. The AUROCs for CRF, p2area, and p1area were significantly greater than that for CH. CONCLUSION: There are significant differences in biomechanical metrics between normal and keratoconic eyes. Compared with the pressure-derived parameters, corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor, novel waveform-derived ORA parameters provide better identification of keratoconus.OBJETIVO: Avaliar a capacidade do Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA; Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Buffalo, NY) em discriminar olhos com ceratocone de olhos normais e comparar parâmetros derivados da pressão dos parâmetros derivados da forma da curva. MÉTODOS:Estudo comparativo retrospectivo série de casos que incluiu 112 pacientes com olhos normais e 41 pacientes com ceratocone bilateral. Um olho de cada indivíduo foi randomicamente selecionado para análise. O diagnóstico de ceratocone foi baseado em exame clínico, incluindo topografia de Plácido e tomografia Scheimpflug. Informação do melhor waveform score foi extraída do software do ORA. Histerese corneana (CH), fator de resistência corneana (CRF), pressão intraocular correlacionada com Goldman (IOPg), pressão intraocular compensada pela córnea (IOPcc) e 37 novos parâmetros derivados da forma da curva do sinal do ORA foram analisados. Diferenças nas distribuições dos grupos foram avaliadas pelo teste Mann-Whitney. Curvas ROC foram calculadas. RESULTADOS: Diferenças estatisticamente significantes foram encontradas entre os olhos normais e ceratocones em todos os parâmetros (p<0,05) salvo IOPcc e W1. A área sob a curva ROC (AUROC) foi maior que 0.85 em 11 parâmetros, incluindo CH (0,852) a CRF (0,895). Os parâmetros relacionados com a área sob o pico da forma de onda durante a segunda e primeira aplanação (p2area e p1area) obtiveram as melhores performances, com AUROCs de 0,939 e 0,929, respectivamente. Os valores de AUROCs do fator de resistência corneana, p2area e p1area foram significativamente maiores que os valores de histerese corneana. CONCLUSÃO: Existem diferenças significantes nas medidas biomecânicas entre olhos normais e com ceratocone. Comparados com os parâmetros derivados da pressão, histerese corneana e fator de resistência corneana, os parâmetros derivados da forma da curva proporcionaram melhor identificação dos ceratocones.Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) Department for OphthalmologyHospital de Olhos de SergipeInstituto de Olhos Renato AmbrósioUNIFESP, Department for OphthalmologySciEL

Determination of Corneal Biomechanical Behavior in-vivo for Healthy Eyes Using CorVis ST Tonometry: Stress-Strain Index

Purpose: This study aims to introduce and clinically validate a new algorithm that can determine the biomechanical properties of the human cornea in vivo.Methods: A parametric study was conducted involving representative finite element models of human ocular globes with wide ranges of geometries and material biomechanical behavior. The models were subjected to different levels of intraocular pressure (IOP) and the action of external air puff produced by a non-contact tonometer. Predictions of dynamic corneal response under air pressure were analyzed to develop an algorithm that can predict the cornea's material behavior. The algorithm was assessed using clinical data obtained from 480 healthy participants where its predictions of material behavior were tested against variations in central corneal thickness (CCT), IOP and age, and compared against those obtained in earlier studies on ex-vivo human ocular tissue.Results: The algorithm produced a material stiffness parameter (Stress-Strain Index or SSI) that showed no significant correlation with both CCT (p &gt; 0.05) and IOP (p &gt; 0.05), but was significantly correlated with age (p &lt; 0.01). The stiffness estimates and their variation with age were also significantly correlated (p &lt; 0.01) with stiffness estimates obtained earlier in studies on ex-vivo human tissue.Conclusions: The study introduced and validated a new method for estimating the in vivo biomechanical behavior of healthy corneal tissue. The method can aid optimization of procedures that interfere mechanically with the cornea such as refractive surgeries and introduction of corneal implants

Ex-vivo experimental validation of biomechanically-corrected intraocular pressure measurements on human eyes using the CorVis ST

The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of the Corvis ST (Oculus; Wetzlar, Germany) biomechanical correction algorithm (bIOP) in determining intraocular pressure (IOP) using experiments on ex-vivo human eyes. Five ex-vivo human ocular globes (age 69 ± 3 years) were obtained and tested within 3–5 days post mortem. Using a custom-built inflation rig, the internal pressure of the eyes was controlled mechanically and measured using the CorVis ST (CVS-IOP). The CVS-IOP measurements were then corrected to produce bIOP, which was developed for being less affected by variations in corneal biomechanical parameters, including tissue thickness and material properties. True IOP (IOPt) was defined as the pressure inside of the globe as monitored using a fixed pressure transducer. Statistical analyses were performed to assess the accuracy of both CVS-IOP and bIOP, and their correlation with corneal thickness. While no significant differences were found between bIOP and IOPt (0.3 ± 1.6 mmHg, P = 0.989) using ANOVA and Bonferroni Post-Hoc test, the differences between CVS-IOP and IOPt were significant (7.5 ± 3.2 mmHg, P < 0.001). Similarly, bIOP exhibited no significant correlation with central corneal thickness (p = 0.756), whereas CVS-IOP was significantly correlated with the thickness (p < 0.001). The bIOP correction has been successful in providing close estimates of true IOP in ex-vivo tests conducted on human donor eye globes, and in reducing association with the cornea's thickness

Artefact-free topography based scleral-asymmetry

Purpose: To present a three-dimensional non-parametric method for detecting scleral asymmetry using corneoscleral topography data that are free of edge-effect artefacts. Methods: The study included 88 participants aged 23 to 65 years (37.7±9.7), 47 women and 41 men. The eye topography data were exported from the Eye Surface Profiler software in MATLAB binary data container format then processed by custom built MATLAB codes entirely independent from the profiler software. Scleral asymmetry was determined initially from the unprocessed topography before being determined again after removing the edge-effect noise. Topography data were levelled around the limbus, then edge-effect was eliminated using a robust statistical moving median technique. In addition to comparing raw elevation data, scleral elevation was also compared through fitting a sphere to every single scleral surface and determining the relative elevation from the best-fit sphere reference surface. Results: When considering the averaged raw topography elevation data in the scleral section of the eye at radius 8 mm, the average raw elevations of the right eyes’ sclera were -1.5±1.77, -1.87±2.12, -1.36±1.82 and -1.57±1.87 mm. In the left eyes at the same radius the average raw elevations were -1.62±1.78, -1.82±2.07, -1.28±1.76 and -1.68±1.93 mm. While, when considering the average raw elevation of the sclera after removing the edge effect, the average raw elevations of the right eyes were -3.71±0.25, -4.06±0.23, -3.95±0.19 and -3.95±0.23 mm. In the left eyes at the same radius the average raw elevations were -3.71±0.19, -3.97±0.22, -3.96±0.19 and -3.96±0.18 mm in the nasal, temporal, superior and inferior sides respectively. Maximum raw elevation asymmetry in the averaged scleral raw elevation was 1.6647±0.9015 mm in right eyes and 1.0358±0.6842 mm in left eyes, both detected at -38° to the nasal side. Best-fit sphere-based relative elevation showed that sclera is more elevated in three main meridians at angles -40°, 76°, and 170° in right eyes and -40°, 76°, and 170° in left eyes, all measured from the nasal meridian. Maximum recorded relative elevation asymmetries were 0.0844±0.0355 mm and 0.068±0.0607 mm at angular positions 76° and 63.5° for right and left eyes in turn. Conclusions: It is not possible to use corneoscleral topography data to predict the scleral shape without considering a method of removing the edge-effect from the topography data. The nasal side of the sclera is higher than the temporal side, therefore, rotationally symmetric scleral contact lenses are more likely to be translated towards the temporal side. The scleral shape is best described by levelled raw elevation rather than relative elevation

Corneal Biomechanics in Ectatic Diseases: Refractive Surgery Implications.

BACKGROUND: Ectasia development occurs due to a chronic corneal biomechanical decompensation or weakness, resulting in stromal thinning and corneal protrusion. This leads to corneal steepening, increase in astigmatism, and irregularity. In corneal refractive surgery, the detection of mild forms of ectasia pre-operatively is essential to avoid post-operative progressive ectasia, which also depends on the impact of the procedure on the cornea. METHOD: The advent of 3D tomography is proven as a significant advancement to further characterize corneal shape beyond front surface topography, which is still relevant. While screening tests for ectasia had been limited to corneal shape (geometry) assessment, clinical biomechanical assessment has been possible since the introduction of the Ocular Response Analyzer (Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Buffalo, USA) in 2005 and the Corvis ST (Oculus Optikgerate GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) in 2010. Direct clinical biomechanical evaluation is recognized as paramount, especially in detection of mild ectatic cases and characterization of the susceptibility for ectasia progression for any cornea. CONCLUSIONS: The purpose of this review is to describe the current state of clinical evaluation of corneal biomechanics, focusing on the most recent advances of commercially available instruments and also on future developments, such as Brillouin microscopy.(undefined)info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio