1979
DOI: 10.1016/0002-9394(79)90519-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Circumferential Flow in Schlemm's Canal

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
17
0

Year Published

1983
1983
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
3
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Imaging with 3D micro-CT also confirmed variability in collector channel orifice size in immersion fixed eyes (27 ± 5.0 µm compared to 5–50 µm (Dvorak-Theobald, 1955) and 50–70 µm (Rohen, Rentsch, 1968). Schlemm’s canal length of 33 mm in the immersed eye and 35 mm in the perfused eye was consistent with previous measurements of 36 mm in normal eyes (Moses, 1979). …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Imaging with 3D micro-CT also confirmed variability in collector channel orifice size in immersion fixed eyes (27 ± 5.0 µm compared to 5–50 µm (Dvorak-Theobald, 1955) and 50–70 µm (Rohen, Rentsch, 1968). Schlemm’s canal length of 33 mm in the immersed eye and 35 mm in the perfused eye was consistent with previous measurements of 36 mm in normal eyes (Moses, 1979). …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…[23][24][25] Outflow resistance has been reported to be higher at higher levels of IOP. [26][27][28] One possible cause for increased resistance is collapse of the SC at higher pressures. 27,28 A similar numeric trend of higher resistance at higher perfusion pressures was seen in our study data as well (Fig.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[26][27][28] One possible cause for increased resistance is collapse of the SC at higher pressures. 27,28 A similar numeric trend of higher resistance at higher perfusion pressures was seen in our study data as well (Fig. 5B); however, the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Outflow facility ( c ) is expressed as a constant in the Goldmann equation, but in fact c decreases as IOP increases (Levene and Hyman 1969; Brubaker 1975), which has been attributed to collapse of Schlemm’s canal (Moses 1979; Van Buskirk 1982). In enucleated eyes, Brubaker (1975) measured a nonlinear relationship between outflow (Q) and IOP (Fig 4) consistent with an IOP-dependent decrease in outflow facility, which is defined Q /(IOP– P e ).…”
Section: Methods Of Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%