Corneal Biomechanical Response Alteration After Scleral Buckling Surgery for Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment

Taroni, Leonardo; Bernabei, Federico; Pellegrini, Marco; Roda, Matilde; Toschi, P. G.; Mahmoud, Ashraf M.; Schiavi, Costantino; Giannaccare, Giuseppe; Roberts, Cynthia J.

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2020.03.054

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although uncommon, complications, such as anterior and posterior segment ischaemia and serous choroidal detachment could occur postoperatively [2]. The mechanical force exerted by the encircling band induces changes in anatomical and functional parameters of the eyeball, such as axial length, anterior chamber depth and corneal biomechanics [3][4][5]. Moreover, previous studies disclosed an impaired ocular circulation, reporting post-operative changes in both choroidal and retinal blood flow [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choroidal vascular changes after encircling scleral buckling for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment

Bernabei

Pellegrini

Taroni

et al. 2020

Eye

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/objectives There is an ongoing debate on whether encircling scleral buckling (SB) procedure for the treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) may cause an impairment in choroidal blood flow. The aim of this study was to compare choroidal vascularity index (CVI) and subfoveal choroidal thickness (CT) between eyes that had undergone encircling SB with unoperated fellow eyes (FEs). Subjects/methods Thirty patients treated with encircling SB for unilateral RRD were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics as well as enhanced depth imaging-optical coherence tomography scans were retrospectively collected. Images were binarised using ImageJ software, total choroidal area along with luminal and stromal area (respectively, TCA, LA and SA) were segmented and the CVI was computed as the ratio of LA/TCA. In addition, CT was evaluated. ResultsThe mean follow-up interval between surgery and examination was 25.5 ± 16.8 months. Choroidal thickness, TCA, LA and SA were significantly increased in the operated eyes compared to FEs (respectively, 271.7 ± 78.0 µm vs. 238.5 ± 83.4, P = 0.001; 1.804 ± 0.491 mm 2 vs. 1.616 ± 0.496, P = 0.001; 1.199 ± 0.333 mm 2 vs. 1.067 ± 0.337, P < 0.001 and 0.605 ± 0.171 mm 2 vs. 0.550 ± 0.171, P = 0.001). Conversely, CVI did not significantly differ between the two groups (66.4 ± 3.6 vs. 65.9 ± 3.2, P = 0.490). Conclusions In conclusion, eyes treated with encircling SB for RRD presented increased LA, SA and CT compared with FEs, but showed no difference in CVI.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choroidal vascular changes after encircling scleral buckling for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment

Bernabei

Pellegrini

Taroni

et al. 2020

Eye

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note, however, that all six of the parameters that differ between the eyes are associated with the first peak of the ORA waveform. A study on subjects who had undergone scleral buckle surgery suggests that the shape of the first peak is driven by the corneal response to the applied air puff and that the shape of the second peak is driven by the scleral response 29 . Thus, the intereye differences in ORA waveform reported here likely are related to the measurement of the biomechanical parameters of the cornea.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Intereye Differences in the Clinical Assessment of Intraocular Pressure and Ocular Biomechanics

Yuhas,

McHugh-Morrison,

Canavan

et al. 2023

Optom Vis Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SIGNIFICANCE Clinicians and researchers will have evidence whether intereye differences confound clinical measurements of intraocular pressure or of ocular biomechanical parameters. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine whether intraocular pressure and biomechanical parameters, as measured by the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and by Cornea Visualization with Scheimpflug Technology (CorVis ST), are different between the first and second eye measured. METHODS Intraocular pressure and biomechanical parameters were collected from both eyes of healthy participants (N = 139). The ORA measured corneal-compensated intraocular pressure, Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure, and corneal hysteresis. The CorVis ST measured biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure, stiffness parameter at first applanation, and stiffness parameter at highest concavity. For each measurement, a paired t test compared the value of the first eye measured against that of the second eye measured. RESULTS For the ORA, Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure was significantly higher (P = .001) in the first eye (14.8 [3.45] mmHg) than in the second eye (14.3 [3.63] mmHg). For the CorVis ST, biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure was significantly higher (P < .001) in the second eye (14.7 [2.14] mmHg) than in the first eye (14.3 [2.11] mmHg). Stiffness parameter at first applanation (intereye difference, 6.85 [9.54] mmHg/mm) was significantly (P < .001) higher in the first eye than in the second eye. Stiffness parameter at highest concavity was significantly higher (P = .01) in the second eye (14.3 [3.18] mmHg/mm) than in the first eye (14.0 [3.13] mmHg/mm). CONCLUSIONS Although there were statistically significant intereye differences in intraocular pressure and in biomechanical parameters for both devices, the variations were small and thus unlikely to affect clinical outcomes.

show abstract

“…New evidence suggests that corneal hysteresis may indeed represent whole-eye hysteresis. A recently published study reported that eyes that received a scleral buckle to treat retinal detachment showed significantly lower corneal hysteresis than the contralateral eyes with no treatment, despite no statistically significant difference in IOP measured with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) between eyes [10]. This suggests that the bio-mechanical properties of the sclera contribute to the measured corneal response.…”

Section: Corneal Biomechanics and Glaucomamentioning

confidence: 99%

Corneal hysteresis: ready for prime time?

Jammal

Medeiros

2022

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of the reviewThis review summarizes recent findings on corneal hysteresis, a biomechanical property of the cornea. Corneal hysteresis measurements can be easily acquired clinically and may serve as surrogate markers for biomechanical properties of tissues in the back of the eye, like the lamina cribrosa and peripapillary sclera, which may be related to the susceptibility to glaucomatous damage.Recent findingsSeveral studies have provided evidence of the associations between corneal hysteresis and clinically relevant outcomes in glaucoma. Corneal hysteresis has been shown to be predictive of glaucoma development in eyes suspected of having the disease. For eyes already diagnosed with glaucoma, lower corneal hysteresis has been associated with higher risk of progression and faster rates of visual field loss over time. Such associations appear to be stronger than those for corneal thickness, suggesting that corneal hysteresis may be a more important predictive factor. Recent evidence has also shown that cornealcorrected intraocular pressure measurements may present advantages compared to conventional Goldmann tonometry in predicting clinically relevant outcomes in glaucoma.SummaryGiven the evidence supporting corneal hysteresis as an important risk factor for glaucoma development and its progression, practitioners should consider measuring corneal hysteresis in all patients at risk for glaucoma, as well as in those already diagnosed with the disease.

show abstract

Corneal Biomechanical Response Alteration After Scleral Buckling Surgery for Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment

Cited by 15 publications

References 35 publications

Choroidal vascular changes after encircling scleral buckling for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment

Choroidal vascular changes after encircling scleral buckling for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment

Intereye Differences in the Clinical Assessment of Intraocular Pressure and Ocular Biomechanics

Corneal hysteresis: ready for prime time?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About