Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 8515742, 4 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8515742
Research Article

Repeatability and Reproducibility of Intraocular Pressure and Dynamic Corneal Response Parameters Assessed by the Corvis ST

1Rio de Janeiro Corneal Tomography and Biomechanics Study Group, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
2Department of Ophthalmology, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
3Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Science and Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
4School of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
5Department of Surgical Sciences, Division of Ophthalmology, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy
6Eye Center, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, Italy
7Humanitas University, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, Italy
8Vincieye Clinic, Milan, Italy
9OCULUS Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany
10Department of Biomedical Computer Systems, Faculty of Computer Science and Materials Science, Institute of Computer Science, University of Silesia, Bedzinska 39, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland

Correspondence should be addressed to Renato Ambrósio Jr

Received 7 February 2017; Accepted 20 April 2017; Published 6 June 2017

Academic Editor: Antonio Queiros

Copyright © 2017 Bernardo T. Lopes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. A. Luz, B. M. Fontes, B. Lopes, I. Ramos, P. Schor, and R. Ambrosio Jr., “ORA waveform-derived biomechanical parameters to distinguish normal from keratoconic eyes,” Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, vol. 76, pp. 111–117, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. M. A. del Buey, J. A. Cristobal, F. J. Ascaso, L. Lavilla, and E. Lanchares, “Biomechanical properties of the cornea in Fuchs’ corneal dystrophy,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 50, pp. 3199–3202, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. F. A. Medeiros, D. Meira-Freitas, R. Lisboa, T. M. Kuang, L. M. Zangwill, and R. N. Weinreb, “Corneal hysteresis as a risk factor for glaucoma progression: a prospective longitudinal study,” Ophthalmology, vol. 120, pp. 1533–1540, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. A. Luz, B. Lopes, K. M. Hallahan et al., “Enhanced combined tomography and biomechanics data for distinguishing forme fruste keratoconus,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, vol. 32, pp. 479–494, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. A. Luz, B. Lopes, K. M. Hallahan et al., “Discriminant value of custom ocular response analyzer waveform derivatives in forme fruste keratoconus,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 164, pp. 14–21, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. C. J. Roberts and W. J. Dupps Jr., “Biomechanics of corneal ectasia and biomechanical treatments,” Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, vol. 40, pp. 991–998, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. G. Wollensak, E. Spoerl, and T. Seiler, “Riboflavin/ultraviolet-a-induced collagen crosslinking for the treatment of keratoconus,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 135, pp. 620–627, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. R. R. Krueger, “Biomechanical manipulation: the next frontier in corneal refractive surgery,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, vol. 25, pp. 837–840, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. D. A. Luce, “Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer,” Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, vol. 31, pp. 156–162, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. R. Ambrósio Jr, I. Ramos, A. Luz et al., “Dynamic ultra high speed Scheimpflug imaging for assessing corneal biomechanical properties,” Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia, vol. 72, pp. 99–102, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. R. Vinciguerra, A. Elsheikh, C. J. Roberts et al., “Influence of pachymetry and intraocular pressure on dynamic corneal response parameters in healthy patients,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, vol. 32, pp. 550–561, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. R. Ambrosio Jr., B. Lopes, F. Faria-Correia et al., “Ectasia detection by the assessment of corneal biomechanics,” Cornea, vol. 35, pp. e18–e20, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. A. A. Joda, M. M. Shervin, D. Kook, and A. Elsheikh, “Development and validation of a correction equation for Corvis tonometry,” Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, vol. 19, pp. 943–953, 2016. View at Google Scholar
  14. C. McAlinden, J. Khadka, and K. Pesudovs, “A comprehensive evaluation of the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of the Oculus Pentacam HR,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 52, pp. 7731–7737, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. X. Chen, A. Stojanovic, Y. Hua et al., “Reliability of corneal dynamic scheimpflug analyser measurements in virgin and post-PRK eyes,” PloS One, vol. 9, no. 10, article e109577, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. C. Ye, M. Yu, G. Lai, and V. Jhanji, “Variability of corneal deformation response in normal and keratoconic eyes,” Optometry and Vision Science, vol. 92, pp. e149–e153, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. R. Vinciguerra, R. Ambrósio Jr, A. Elsheikh et al., “Detection of keratoconus with a new corvis ST biomechanical index,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 803–810, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. G. Nemeth, Z. Hassan, A. Csutak, E. Szalai, A. Berta, and L. Modis Jr., “Repeatability of ocular biomechanical data measurements with a Scheimpflug-based noncontact device on normal corneas,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, vol. 29, pp. 558–563, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. N. Q. Ali, D. V. Patel, and C. N. McGhee, “Biomechanical responses of healthy and keratoconic corneas measured using a noncontact scheimpflug-based tonometer,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 55, pp. 3651–3659, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. S. Bak-Nielsen, I. B. Pedersen, A. Ivarsen, and J. Hjortdal, “Repeatability, reproducibility, and age dependency of dynamic Scheimpflug-based pneumotonometer and its correlation with a dynamic bidirectional pneumotonometry device,” Cornea, vol. 34, pp. 71–77, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar