2020
DOI: 10.1113/jp278768
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intracranial pressure modulates aqueous humour dynamics of the eye

Abstract: Key points An elevation in intracranial pressure (ICP) lowers conventional outflow facility (increases aqueous outflow resistance) of rat eyes. The reduction in outflow facility correlates with an increase in intraocular pressure (IOP). The effect of ICP elevation on outflow facility and IOP is blocked by TTX. The results indicate that aqueous humour dynamics is modulated by ICP‐driven neural feedback from the brain. This feedback mechanism may act to stabilize translaminar pressure across the optic nerve hea… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
0
13
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…46 In a recent study of aqueous humor dynamics in a rat model of raised ICP, there was a reduction in the outflow facility ("C" in the Goldmann equation) following ICP elevation, which the investigators attributed to neural feedback mechanism driven by ICP. 47 The investigators did not collect data for EVP, which is a major limitation. Third, EVP has a smaller population normal range and variability (mean ± SD: 7.6 ± 1.3 mm Hg) 20 compared to IOP (mean ± SD: 15.5 ± 2.6 mm Hg), which also shows a skew at higher IOP levels.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…46 In a recent study of aqueous humor dynamics in a rat model of raised ICP, there was a reduction in the outflow facility ("C" in the Goldmann equation) following ICP elevation, which the investigators attributed to neural feedback mechanism driven by ICP. 47 The investigators did not collect data for EVP, which is a major limitation. Third, EVP has a smaller population normal range and variability (mean ± SD: 7.6 ± 1.3 mm Hg) 20 compared to IOP (mean ± SD: 15.5 ± 2.6 mm Hg), which also shows a skew at higher IOP levels.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent study by Ficarotta and Passaglia (2020) has introduced a new theory on the interaction of intracranial pressure with intraocular pressure (IOP), which has implications for our understanding of the potential aetiology of SANS (Jaki Mekjavic, Amoaku, Mlinar & Mekjavic, 2020). In a rodent model, these authors varied the intracranial pressure and monitored aqueous humour outflow.…”
Section: Hyper‐ and Microgravitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast to a younger group (Mlinar T., Jaki Mekjavic P. & Mekjavic I.B., unpublished observations), their exercise‐induced increase in IOP was much greater. It is speculated that the difference in the IOP response to static hand‐grip exercise might be the age‐related change in the structure of the lamina cribrosa (Kotecha, Izadi, & Jeffery, 2006) or an age‐related change in the intracranial pressure‐dependent neural feedback mechanism protecting the optic nerve from damage by maintaining the translaminar pressure gradient (Ficarotta & Passaglia, 2020).…”
Section: Confounding and Contributing Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…IOP and ICP are 2 sets of pressure systems that are interrelated and relatively independent. Through the circulation of the aqueous humor and CSF, ICP and IOP are relatively stable (1).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%