The assessment of the underlying factors that influence the biomechanics and dynamics of the cornea is essential for preserving the safety and efficacy of refractive surgeries. In the present work, the operated cornea with intracorneal ring segments (ICRSs) in a patient-specific finite-element model (FEM) was subjected to the air-puff. Then, the dynamic deformation parameters predicted by the FEM were obtained and compared with the corresponding values in clinical measurements. In this study, the effects of ICRS design, position, and implementation procedure in six different surgical scenarios were examined on the induced corneal stresses, deformation behavior, and shape regularization. While surgical scenarios with arc lengths of 160° (single and double segment), 355° implemented with the tunnel incision method provided similar maximum apical displacement (MAD) and highest concavity radius of curvature HCR), they induced significantly different flattening effects. The surgical scenarios with the segment of 160° arc-length implemented in nasal–temporal direction showed an approximately 15% higher reduction in mean corneal power () value than the superior–inferior direction. From a solid-mechanics perspective, the study of ICRS mechanics in the cornea also confirmed the importance of the implementation position to achieve satisfactory flattening outcomes. Comparison of the two types of ICRS implementation procedures showed that, although the pocket method demonstrated a 10.23% higher MAD, it induced a higher reduction in the HCR of 21.65% compared with tunnel incision. The developed numerical model demonstrated the direct correlation of the ICRS insertion site with induced contact stresses and ICRS position stability. The study hypothesizes the significant influence of ICRS implementation position and procedure on the corneal biomechanical and dynamical behaviors. The proposed approach can be assessed as a robust and novel framework for planning optimized corneal refractive surgeries.
AuffarthGUWangLVölckerHE.Keratoconus evaluation using the orbscan topography system. J Cataract Refract Surg2000; 26(2): 222–228.
2.
Vega-EstradaAAlioJLBrennerLF, et al. Outcome analysis of intracorneal ring segments for the treatment of keratoconus based on visual, refractive, and aberrometric impairment. Amer J Ophthalmol2013; 155(3): 575–584.e1.
3.
LeónF.Surgical treatment of keratoconus and LASIK ectasia with intrastromal corneal ring segments (Keraring®) and femtoseconds laser implantation. In: Femtosecond Laser: Techniques and Technology. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd., 2012, pp. 52–52.
4.
DaxerAMahmoudHVenkateswaranRS.Intracorneal continuous ring implantation for keratoconus: One-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg2010; 36(8): 1296–1302.
5.
GefenAShalomREladD, et al. Biomechanical analysis of the keratoconic cornea. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2009; 2(3): 224–236.
6.
JananiLTanhaKNajafiF, et al. Efficacy of complete rings (MyoRing) in treatment of keratoconus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Ophthalmol2019; 39(12): 2929–2946.
7.
SakellarisDBalidisMGorouO, et al. Intracorneal ring segment implantation in the management of keratoconus: An evidence-based approach. Ophthalmol Ther2019; 8(S1): 5–14.
8.
DaxerA.Biomechanics of corneal ring implants. Cornea2015; 34(11): 1493–1498.
9.
ShahSLaiquzzamanMBhojwaniR, et al. Assessment of the biomechanical properties of the cornea with the ocular response analyzer in normal and keratoconic eyes. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci2007; 48(7): 3026.
10.
EliasyAChenKJVinciguerraR, et al. Determination of corneal biomechanical behavior in-vivo for healthy eyes using corvis ST tonometry: Stress-strain index. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2019; 7: 105.
11.
DorronsoroCPascualDPérez-MerinoP, et al. Dynamic OCT measurement of corneal deformation by an air puff in normal and cross-linked corneas. Biomed Opt Express2012; 3(3): 473.
12.
MakladOEliasyAChenKJ, et al. Fluid-structure interaction based algorithms for IOP and corneal material behavior. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2020; 8: 970.
13.
SimoniniIAngelilloMPandolfiA.Theoretical and numerical analysis of the corneal air puff test. J Mech Phys Solids2016; 93: 118–134.
14.
RoyASKurianMMataliaH, et al. Air-puff associated quantification of non-linear biomechanical properties of the human cornea in vivo. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2015; 48: 173–182.
15.
FrancisMKhamarPShettyR, et al. In vivo prediction of air-puff induced corneal deformation using LASIK, SMILE, and PRK finite element simulations. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci2018; 59(13): 5320.
16.
KlingSBekesiNDorronsoroC, et al. Corneal viscoelastic properties from finite-element analysis of in vivo air-puff deformation. PLoS ONE2014; 9(8): e104904.
17.
JannesariMMosaddeghPKadkhodaeiM, et al. Numerical and clinical investigation on the material model of the cornea in corvis tonometry tests: Differentiation between hyperelasticity and viscoelasticity. Mech Time-Depend Mater2018; 23(3): 373–384.
18.
RahmatiSMRazaghiRKarimiA.Biomechanics of the keratoconic cornea: Theory, segmentation, pressure distribution, and coupled FE-optimization algorithm. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2021; 113: 104155.
19.
Ariza-GraciaMÁZuritaJFPiñeroDP, et al. Coupled biomechanical response of the cornea assessed by non-contact tonometry. A simulation study. PLoS ONE2015; 10(3): e0121486.
20.
MontaninoAAngelilloMPandolfiA.Modelling with a meshfree approach the cornea-aqueous humor interaction during the air puff test. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2018; 77: 205–216.
21.
MuenchSRoelligMSpoerlE, et al. Numerical and experimental study of the spatial stress distribution on the cornea surface during a non-contact tonometry examination. Exp Mech2018; 59(9): 1285–1297.
22.
Ariza-GraciaMÁFlecha-LescúnJBüchlerP, et al. Corneal biomechanics after intrastromal ring surgery: Optomechanical in silico assessment. Translat Vis Sci Technol2020; 9(11): 26.
23.
AmbrósioRLopesBTFaria-CorreiaF, et al. Integration of scheimpflug-based corneal tomography and biomechanical assessments for enhancing ectasia detection. J Refract Surg2017; 33(7): 434–443.
24.
RobertsCJMahmoudAMBonsJP, et al. Introduction of two novel stiffness parameters and interpretation of air puff–induced biomechanical deformation parameters with a dynamic scheimpflug analyzer. J Refract Surg2017; 33(4): 266–273.
25.
SedaghatMRMomeni-MoghaddamHAmbrósioR, et al. Diagnostic ability of corneal shape and biomechanical parameters for detecting frank keratoconus. Cornea2018; 37(8): 1025–1034.
26.
MakladOEliasyAChenKJ, et al. Fluid-structure interaction based algorithms for IOP and corneal material behavior. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2020; 8.
27.
IssartiIConsejoAJimenez-GarcaM, et al. Logistic index for keratoconus detection and severity scoring (logik). Comput Biol Med2020; 122: 103809.
28.
LeaoERenTILyraJM, et al. Corneal deformation amplitude analysis for keratoconus detection through compensation for intraocular pressure and integration with horizontal thickness profile. Comput Biol Med2019; 109: 263–271.
29.
LiKOgdenRWHolzapfelGA.An exponential constitutive model excluding fibres under compression: Application to extension–inflation of a residually stressed carotid artery. Math Mech Solids2017; 23(8): 1206–1224.
30.
GasserTCOgdenRWHolzapfelGA.Hyperelastic modelling of arterial layers with distributed collagen fibre orientations. J R Soc Interface2005; 3(6): 15–35.
31.
ElsheikhAWhitfordCHamarashidR, et al. Stress free configuration of the human eye. Med Eng Phys2013; 35(2): 211–216.
32.
JannesariMKadkhodaeiMMosaddeghP, et al. Assessment of corneal and fatty tissues biomechanical response in dynamic tonometry tests by using inverse models. Acta Bioeng Biomech2018; 20(1): 39–48.
33.
Ariza-GraciaMÁRedondoSLlorensDP, et al. A predictive tool for determining patient-specific mechanical properties of human corneal tissue. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng2017; 317: 226–247.
34.
BagheriNMKadkhodaeiMMosaddeghP.Finite element study on biomechanical properties of keratoconus cornea in order to improve the refractive surgery results. Isfahan University of Technology, 2019.
35.
SedaghatMRMomeni-MoghaddamHBelinMW, et al. Comparative analysis of two different types of intracorneal implants in keratoconus: A corneal tomographic study. Eur J Ophthalmol2020; in press.
36.
BamdadSSedaghatMRYasemiM, et al. Intracorneal stromal ring can affect the biomechanics of ectatic cornea. J Ophthalmol2020; in press.
37.
IzquierdoLMejías SmithJALievanoJR, et al. Modification of the intrastromal ring position according to postimplant visual and refractive failure: Report of two cases. Case Rep Ophthalmol Med2019; in press.
38.
RagabARABayoumiSEA.Engineering Solid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications. New York: Routledge, 2018.
39.
KleinSA.Axial curvature and the skew ray error in corneal topography. Optomet Vis Sci1997; 74(11): 931–944.
40.
AngelilloMMontaninoAPandolfiA.On the connection between geometry and statically determined membrane stresses in the human cornea. J Biomech Eng2020; 142(5): 051006.
41.
KlingSMarcosS.Finite-element modeling of intrastromal ring segment implantation into a hyperelastic cornea. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci2013; 54(1): 881.
42.
LagoMRupérezMMonserratC, et al. Patient-specific simulation of the intrastromal ring segment implantation in corneas with keratoconus. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2015; 51: 260–268.
43.
EbrahimianAMosaddeghPBagheriNM, et al. A simple numerical approach to mimic myoring surgery in keratoconus corneas based on optical coherence tomography. EC Ophthalmology2019; 10: 345–356.
44.
Flecha-LescúnJCalvoBZuritaJ, et al. Template-based methodology for the simulation of intracorneal segment ring implantation in human corneas. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2018; 17(4): 923–938.
45.
HashimotoYFunamotoSSasakiS, et al. Re-epithelialization and remodeling of decellularized corneal matrix in a rabbit corneal epithelial wound model. Mater Sci Eng C2019; 102: 238–246.
46.
LekszyckiTDell’IsolaF.A mixture model with evolving mass densities for describing synthesis and resorption phenomena in bones reconstructed with bio-resorbable materials. Z angew Math Mech2012; 92(6): 426–444.
47.
GiorgioISpagnuoloMAndreausU, et al. In-depth gaze at the astonishing mechanical behavior of bone: A review for designing bio-inspired hierarchical metamaterials. Math Mech Solids2020; in press.
48.
PlacidiLBarchiesiEMisraA.A strain gradient variational approach to damage: A comparison with damage gradient models and numerical results. Math Mech Complex Syst2018; 6(2): 77–100.
49.
AltenbachJAltenbachHEremeyevVA.On generalized Cosserat-type theories of plates and shells: A short review and bibliography. Arch Appl Mech2010; 80(1): 73–92.
50.
Dell’IsolaFSeppecherPMadeoA.How contact interactions may depend on the shape of Cauchy cuts in n th gradient continua: Approach “à la d’alembert”. Z angew Math Phys2012; 63(6): 1119–1141.
