Prospective one year study of corneal biomechanical changes following high intensity,accelerated cornea cross-linking in patients with keratoconus using a non-contact tonometer
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2022
Prospective one year study of corneal biomechanical changes following high intensity,accelerated cornea cross-linking in patients with keratoconus using a non-contact tonometer
To characterize corneal biomechanical properties utilizing a dynamic ultra-high-speed Scheimpflug camera equipped with a non-contact tonometer (CorVis ST, CST) in keratoconic corneas following continuous high intensity, high irradiance corneal cross-linking.
Design
Prospective longitudinal single-centre study at a tertiary referral center.
Methods
Corneal biomechanical properties were measured in patients with progressive keratoconus undergoing high intensity (30 mW/cm2), high irradiance (5.4 J/cm2), accelerated corneal cross-linking with continuous exposure to ultraviolet-A for 4 min. CST was used to assess corneal biomechanical properties pre-operatively and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-operatively. CST output videos were further analyzed using several previously reported algorithms.
Results
A total of 25 eyes of 25 participants were examined. The mean age of participants was 20.9 ± 5.3 years; 56% were male and 80% were of Māori or Pacific Island origin. Energy absorbed area (mN mm), was the only significantly changed parameter compared to baseline at all time points measuring 3.61 ± 1.19 preoperatively, 2.81 ± 1.15 at 1 month (p = 0.037), 2.79 ± 0.81 (p = 0.033) at 3 months, 2.76 ± 0.95 (p = 0.028) at 6 months and 2.71 ± 1.18 (p = 0.016) at 12 months.
Conclusions
The significant difference between the pre and post-operative energy absorbed area appears to reflect changes in corneal viscous properties that occur following corneal cross-linking.
ZiaeiMBarsamAShamieN, et al.Reshaping procedures for the surgical management of corneal ectasia. J Cataract Refract Surg2015; 41: 842–872.
2.
RubinfeldRSCarusoCOstacoloC. Corneal cross-linking: the science beyond the myths and misconceptions. Cornea2019; 38: 780–790.
3.
O’BrartDPS. Corneal collagen cross-linking: a review. J Optom2014; 7: 113–124.
4.
AkhtarSAlmubradTPaladiniI,et al.Keratoconus corneal architecture after riboflavin/ultraviolet a cross-linking: ultrastructural studies. Mol Vision2013; 19: 1526–1537.
5.
ChangSHMohammadvaliAChenKJ, et al.The relationship between mechanical properties, ultrastructural changes, and intrafibrillar bond formation in corneal UVA/riboflavin cross-linking treatment for keratoconus. Journal of Refractive Surgery (Thorofare, NJ: 1995)2018; 34: 264–272.
6.
WollensakGWilschMSpoerlE,et al.Collagen fiber diameter in the rabbit cornea after collagen crosslinking by riboflavin/UVA. Cornea2004; 23: 503–507.
7.
Bak-NielsenSPedersenIBIvarsenA,et al.Dynamic Scheimpflug-based assessment of keratoconus and the effects of corneal cross-linking. Journal of Refractive Surgery (Thorofare, NJ: 1995)2014; 30: 408–414.
8.
FuchslugerTABrettlSGeerlingG,et al.Biomechanical assessment of healthy and keratoconic corneas (with/without crosslinking) using dynamic ultrahigh-speed scheimpflug technology and the relevance of the parameter (A1L-A2L). Br J Ophthalmol2019; 103: 558–564.
9.
SaloutiRKhaliliMRZamaniM,et al.Assessment of the changes in corneal biomechanical properties after collagen cross-linking in patients with keratoconus. Journal of Current Ophthalmology2019; 31: 262–267.
10.
SedaghatMRMomeni-MoghaddamHAmbrosioRJr., et al. Long-term evaluation of corneal biomechanical properties after corneal cross-linking for keratoconus: a 4-year longitudinal study. J Refract Surg. 2018;34:849–856.
11.
SteinbergJKatzTMousliA, et al. Corneal biomechanical changes after crosslinking for progressive keratoconus with the corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology. J Ophthalmol. 2014;2014:579190.
VinciguerraRRomanoVArbabiEM, et al.In vivo early corneal biomechanical changes after corneal cross-linking in patients with progressive keratoconus. J Refract Surg2017; 33: 840–846.
14.
ZiaeiMVellaraHGokulA,et al.Prospective 2-year study of accelerated pulsed transepithelial corneal crosslinking outcomes for keratoconus. Eye (Lond)2019; 13(12): 1897–1903.
15.
ZiaeiMVellaraHRGokulA,et al.Comparison of corneal biomechanical properties following penetrating keratoplasty and deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for keratoconus. Clin Exp Ophthalmol2019; 48(2): 174–182.
16.
ZiaeiMGokulAVellaraH,et al.Measurement of in vivo biomechanical changes attributable to epithelial removal in keratoconus using a noncontact tonometer. Cornea. 2020; 39(8): 946–951.
17.
RobertsCJMahmoudAMBonsJP, et al.Introduction of two novel stiffness parameters and interpretation of air puff-induced biomechanical deformation parameters with a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer. Journal of Refractive Surgery (Thorofare, NJ: 1995)2017; 33: 266–273.
18.
ShettyRNuijtsRMSrivatsaP, et al.Understanding the correlation between tomographic and biomechanical severity of keratoconic corneas. BioMed Res Int2015; 2015: 294197.
19.
SteinbergJKatzTLuckeK,et al.Screening for keratoconus with new dynamic biomechanical in vivo Scheimpflug analyses. Cornea2015; 34: 1404–1412.
20.
VellaraHRAliNQGokulA,et al.Quantitative analysis of corneal energy dissipation and corneal and orbital deformation in response to an air-pulse in healthy eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci2015; 56: 6941–6947.
21.
VellaraHRGokulAMcGheeCNJ, et al.Evaluation of the algorithms utilised to diagnose keratoconus for the Corvis ST 2019. In: Air-Puff Tonometers [Internet]. IOP Publishing; [4-1-4-8]. Available from:https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2053-2563/aafee5ch4.
22.
WangLKTianLZhengYP. Determining in vivo elasticity and viscosity with dynamic scheimpflug imaging analysis in keratoconic and healthy eyes. J Biophotonics2016; 9: 454–463.
23.
SalmanAG. Transepithelial corneal collagen crosslinking for progressive keratoconus in a pediatric age group. J Cataract Refract Surg2013; 39: 1164–1170.
24.
SafarzadehMNasiriNDoostdarA,et al.Comparative study of changes of corneal curvatures and uncorrected distance visual acuity prior to and after corneal collagen crosslinking: 1-year results. Taiwan J Ophthalmol2016; 6: 127–130.
25.
ZiaeiMGokulAVellaraH,et al.Prospective two-year study of clinical outcomes following epithelium-off pulsed versus continuous accelerated corneal crosslinking for keratoconus. Clin Exp Ophthalmol2019; 47(8): 980–986.
26.
HonYLamAK. Corneal deformation measurement using Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry. Optom Vis Sci2013; 90: e1–e8.
27.
JedzierowskaMKoprowskiR. Novel dynamic corneal response parameters in a practice use: a critical review. Biomed Eng Online2019; 18: 17.
28.
HashemiHAmbrosioRJr.VinciguerraR, et al. Two-year changes in corneal stiffness parameters after accelerated corneal cross-linking. J Biomech. 2019;93:209–212.
29.
GoebelsSEppigTWagenpfeilS,et al.Staging of keratoconus indices regarding tomography, topography, and biomechanical measurements. Am J Ophthalmol2015; 159: 733–738.
30.
KeaneMCosterDZiaeiM,et al.Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for treating keratoconus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2014; 22(7): CD009700.
31.
WollensakGIomdinaE. Biomechanical and histological changes after corneal crosslinking with and without epithelial debridement. J Cataract Refract Surg2009; 35: 540–546.
32.
SpoerlEWollensakGSeilerT. Increased resistance of crosslinked cornea against enzymatic digestion. Curr Eye Res2004; 29: 35–40.
ZhangYConradAHConradGW. Effects of ultraviolet-A and riboflavin on the interaction of collagen and proteoglycans during corneal cross-linking. J Biol Chem2011; 286: 13011–13022.
35.
VinciguerraRTzamalisARomanoV,et al.Assessment of the association between in vivo corneal biomechanical changes after corneal cross-linking and depth of demarcation line. J Refract Surg2019; 35: 202–206.
36.
YangKXuLFanQ,et al.Repeatability and comparison of new corvis ST parameters in normal and keratoconus eyes. Sci Rep2019; 9: 15379.
37.
SerbecicNBeutelspacherSMarkovicL,et al.Repeatability and reproducibility of corneal biomechanical parameters derived from corvis STEur J Ophthalmol2019; 30(6): 1287–1294.
38.
LanzaMCennamoMIaccarinoS, et al.Evaluation of corneal deformation analyzed with a Scheimpflug based device. Cont Lens Anterior Eye2015; 38: 89–93.
39.
BekesiNGallego-MunozPIbares-FriasL, et al.Biomechanical changes after in vivo collagen cross-linking with rose Bengal-green light and riboflavin-UVA. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2017; 58: 1612–1620.
40.
Rosato DVSNRosatoMG. Plastics Institute of America Plastics Engineering, Manufacturing & Data Handbook: Springer Science & Business Media; 2001.
41.
VellaraHRPatelDV. Biomechanical properties of the keratoconic cornea: a review. Clin Exp Optom2015; 98: 31–38.
42.
DiasJDiakonisVFLorenzoM, et al.Corneal stromal elasticity and viscoelasticity assessed by atomic force microscopy after different cross linking protocols. Exp Eye Res2015; 138: 1–5.
43.
EliasyAChenK-JVinciguerraR, et al.Determination of corneal biomechanical behavior in-vivo for healthy eyes using CorVis ST tonometry: stress-strain index. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2019; 7: 105.
44.
HuseynovaTWaringGORobertsC,et al.Corneal biomechanics as a function of intraocular pressure and pachymetry by dynamic infrared signal and Scheimpflug imaging analysis in normal eyes. Am J Ophthalmol2014; 157: 885–893.
45.
ZhaoYShenYYanZ,et al.Relationship among corneal stiffness, thickness, and biomechanical parameters measured by corvis ST, pentacam and ORA in keratoconus. Front Physiol2019; 10: 740.
46.
VinciguerraRElsheikhARobertsCJ, et al. Influence of pachymetry and intraocular pressure on dynamic corneal response parameters in healthy patients. J Refract Surg. 2016;32:550–561.
47.
SedaghatMRMomeni-MoghaddamHAzimiA, et al.Corneal biomechanical properties in varying severities of myopia. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2020; 8: 595330.
48.
Papali’i-CurtinATCoxRMaT,et al.Keratoconus prevalence among high school students in New Zealand. Cornea2019; 38: 1382–1389.
49.
YoonJJMisraSLMcGheeC,et al.Demographics and ocular biometric characteristics of patients undergoing cataract surgery in Auckland, New Zealand. Clin Exp Ophthalmol2016; 44: 106–113.
