·Clinical Research· ·Current Issue·  ·Achieve·  ·Search Articles·  ·Online Submission·  ·About IJO·  PMC

 

Comparison of corneal biomechanical properties in normal tension glaucoma patients with different visual field progression speed

 

Ying Hong1, Nobuyuki Shoji2,3, Tetsuya Morita4, Kazunori Hirasawa2, Kazuhiro Matsumura4, Masayuki Kasahara3, Kimiya Shimizu4

 

1Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, Key Laboratory of Vision Loss and Restoration, Ministry of Education, Beijing 100191, China

2Department of Rehabilitation, Orthoptics and Visual Science Course, Kitasato University School of Allied Health Sciences, Sagamihara City 252-0373, Japan

3Department of Ophthalmology, Kitasato University Hospital, Sagamihara City 252-0373, Japan

4Kitasato University, Sagamihara City 252-0373, Japan

Correspondence to: Nobuyuki Shoji. Department of Rehabilitation, Orthoptics and Visual Science Course, Kitasato University School of Allied Health Sciences, 1-15-1, Kitasato, North District, Sagamihara City 252-0373, Japan. ns_assist1@kjb.biglobe.ne.jp

Received: 2015-04-08           Accepted: 2015-11-21

 

Abstract

AIM: To compare the corneal biomechanical properties difference by ocular response analyzer (ORA) in normal tension glaucoma (NTG) patients with different visual field (VF) progression speed.

METHODS: NTG patients with well-controlled Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) who routinely consulted Kitasato University Hospital Glaucoma Department between January 2010 and February 2014 were enrolled. GAT and ORA parameters including corneal compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc), Goldmann estimated intraocular pressure (IOPg), corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF) were recorded. VF was tested by Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA)-standard 30-2 fields. All patients underwent VF measurement regularly and GAT did not exceed 15 mm Hg at any time during the 3y follow up. Patients were divided into four groups according to VF change over 3y, and ORA findings were compared between the upper 25th percentile group (slow progression group) and the lower 25th percentile group (rapid progression group).

RESULTS: Eighty-two eyes of 56 patients were studied. There were 21 eyes (21 patients) each in rapid and slow progression groups respectively. GAT, IOPcc, IOPg, CH, CRF were 12.1±1.4 mm Hg, 15.8±1.8 mm Hg, 12.8±2.0 mm Hg, 8.4±1.1 mm Hg, 7.9±1.3 mm Hg respectively in rapid progression group and 11.5±1.3 mm Hg, 13.5±2.1 mm Hg, 11.2±1.6 mm Hg, 9.3±1.1 mm Hg, 8.2±0.9 mm Hg respectively in slow progression group (P=0.214, <0.001, 0.007, 0.017, 0.413, respectively). In bivariate correlation analysis, IOPcc, IOPcc-GAT and CH were significant correlated with m△MD (r=-0.292, -0.312, 0.228 respectively, P=0.008, 0.004, 0.039 respectively).

CONCLUSION: Relatively rapid VF progression occurred in NTG patients whose IOPcc are rather high, CH are rather low and the difference between IOPcc and GAT are relatively large. Higher IOPcc and lower CH are associated with VF progression in NTG patients. This study suggests that GAT measures might underestimate the IOP in such patients.

KEYWORDS: ocular response analyzer; intraocular pressure; corneal biochemical properties; visual field; normal tension glaucoma

DOI:10.18240/ijo.2016.07.06

 

Citation: Hong Y, Shoji N, Morita T, Hirasawa K, Matsumura K, Kasahara M, Shimizu K. Comparison of corneal biomechanical properties in normal tension glaucoma patients with different visual field progression speed. Int J Ophthalmol  2016;9(7):973-978

 

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) in Japan is 3.9% with 92% of POAG patients whose intraocular pressure (IOP) did not exceed 21 mm Hg, which is defined as normal-tension glaucoma (NTG)[1]. In some patients with well-controlled IOP, the visual field (VF) remains stable or progresses very slowly, while in others the condition is quite different: IOP is well controlled but VF progresses rapidly[2]. There have been a number of studies focusing on the pressure-independent pathway of glaucoma[3-7], but the accuracy of IOP measurement may play an important role in such cases.

Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) is currently the gold standard for IOP measurement, but these values (GAT-IOP) may be affected by central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal curvature, corneal astigmatism and other corneal biomechanical properties[8-11]. Therefore, it is very important to find a new method to determine the true IOP.

Ocular response analyzer (ORA) (Reichert©; Reichert Technologies, Buffalo, NY, USA) is a new device that is described as a non-contact tonometer. ORA can measure corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF) and determine a specific corneal compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc) which is less influenced by corneal viscoelasticity. There have been studies discussing the relationship between ORA measurements and structural or functional changes in glaucoma patients, but most of them have focused on patients with POAG or suspected glaucoma[2,12-15].

There are limited data on ORA measurements in NTG patients. Moreover, the relationship between corneal viscoelasticity, corneal thickness and VF progression in NTG patients remains unclear. In the current study, we obtained ORA parameters including IOPcc, Goldmann estimated intraocular pressure (IOPg), GAT, CH and CRF in NTG patients with well-controlled GAT-IOP. We compare ORA data in patients with different VF progression speed to see relatively rapid VF progression might occur in what kind of NTG patients.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was approved by the Kitasato University Hospital Review Board and followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all patients included in this study. Patients routinely consulted Kitasato University Hospital glaucoma department between January 2010 and February 2014 and were usually seen at intervals of 3-6mo.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: NTG was defined by the presence of glaucomatous optic neuropathy[16] associated with reproducible VF abnormalities. GAT-IOP did not exceed 15 mm Hg including diurnal variation during the recent 3y, because NTG patients whose IOP exceed 16 mm Hg in the daytime are likely to have an IOP that exceeds 21 mm Hg at night[17].

The ocular examination included visual acuity, corneal parameters such as corneal curvature and corneal refractive power, GAT, ORA parameters including IOPcc, IOPg, CH, CRF and CCT. VF was examined by SITA-Standard 30-2 fields (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA, USA). The parameters of VF using for the current study were the mean deviation (MD) and the pattern standard deviation (PSD). The minimum criterion for a VF abnormality was a glaucoma hemifield test outside normal limits or a PSD result ＜5% on 2 consecutive reliable examinations. All enrolled patients underwent at least 5 VF tests to analyze VF progression statistically. We analyzed VF change by global trend analysis by MD slope. The MD slope, MD change per year (dB/y) was obtained from linear regression analysis of the HFA II glaucoma progression analysis software. MD change was calculated by MD slope multiply 3 because the follow-up period was 3y. And the PSD change was the difference between the VF results at last follow-up and the baseline ones.

All eyes had best corrected visual acuity ≥20/30. Refractive error of the patients was between -8.0 diopters and 8.0 diopters spherical equivalent and corneal astigmatism between -3.0 diopters and 3.0 diopters.

We excluded patients with an insufficient number of VF results because we could not analyze whether VF had progressed in such cases. Patients with other diseases that may affect the VF test and/or ORA test were also excluded. Patients who had undergone any type of intraocular surgery within the past 3mo before the participation in this study were also excluded[13]. Patients underwent VF test first and then IOP measurements were obtained in a random sequence in order to minimize the potential for a statistical effect of applanation on lowering IOP.

Corneal biomechanical properties were measured with ORA once at the patient's study visit. All patients were tested by one experienced doctor. The device obtains 2 measurements of the corneal response to the air pulse. The major outcomes are CH, CRF and IOPcc (mm Hg). The difference between the 2 pressures is CH (mm Hg). CRF is thought to be one of the indices of corneal elasticity based on CH, IOPg is the average of P1 and P2. IOPcc is a pressure measurement based on CH, which is thought little to be affected by corneal biomechanical properties. ORA can also provide CCT results[9,11,18]. A good quality reading was defined as one with symmetrical height of force-in and force-out waveform peaks and a waveform score >7 on a software-generated scale of 0 to 10[18-19].

Statistical Analysis  Data were analyzed by statistical software (SPSS version 20.0 SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Categorical data were compared by χ2 tests. Continuous variables were tested for normal distribution. Variables with normal distribution are presented as mean±SD and were compared by independent Student’s t-test. Variables with skewed distribution are presented as median with interquartile range (IR) and were compared by Mann-Whitney U test. Bivariate correlation analysis was constructed to determine variables associated with VF damage. A two-tailed P<0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

There were 142 NTG patients with good follow-up during the study period, but only 82 eyes of 56 patients met the inclusion criterion of GAT-IOP (GATmax) not exceeding 15 mm Hg during the 3y. Therefore, 82 eyes of 56 patients were enrolled in this study. These 26 males and 30 females had an average age of 62.6y (range from 37-84y). One eye of 30 patients and both eyes of 26 patients were included. All patients were Asian. The included eyes underwent a median of 7.1 (range from 5-12) VF tests during follow-up. There were 16 eyes (19.5%) without any kind of antiglaucoma eye drops, 43 eyes (52.4%) receiving one kind of eye drops, 17 eyes (20.7%) receiving 2 kinds of eye drops and 6 eyes (7.3%) receiving 3 kinds of eye drops. Details are showed in Table 1.

Table 1 Antiglaucoma eye drops of the patients

Treatment

Number (eyes)

Percentage (%)

None

16

19.5

PG

31

37.8

β-Blocker

11

13.4

CAI

1

1.2

PG+β-Blocker

11

13.4

PG+CAI

6

7.3

PG+β-Blocker+CAI

6

7.3

PG: Prostaglandin; CAI: Carbonic anhydrase inhibitor.

 

Patient general information, their ORA parameters and VF change over the 3y are listed in Table 2. In brief, the GAT on the day ORA obtained was 12.0 mm Hg, as the same as the median GAT (GATavg, 12 mm Hg) over the 3y. Both of such measurements were approximately 3 mm Hg lower than IOPcc (15.0 mm Hg). The average CH was 8.9 mm Hg and CRF was 8.1 mm Hg, which were both below normal limits[18,20]. The median MD change (m△MD) was -0.8 dB over the 3y, indicating approximately 0.3 dB VF loss per year.

Table 2 General and clinical characteristics of the patients

Characteristics

 (median)

Range

Age

62.6±11.8

37-84

Gender (M/F)

26/30

 

Eyedrops

1.2±0.8

0-3

Corneal curvature

7.73±0.23

7.27-8.49

Corneal refractive power

43.7±1.3

39.75-46.50

GAT (mm Hg)

12.0±1.5

9-15

GATmax

14 (14, 15)

10-15

GATavg

12 (12, 13)

9-14

IOPcc (mm Hg)

15.0±2.5

9.3-20.1

IOPg (mm Hg)

12.3±2.2

7.4-17.7

IOPcc-IOPg (mm Hg)

2.6±1.4

-0.9-5.6

IOPcc-GAT (mm Hg)

2.9±2.2

-2.0-9.1

CRF (mm Hg)

8.1±1.2

5.6-11.5

CH (mm Hg)

8.9±1.3

6.1-11.7

CCT (μm)

520.0±26.8

474-580

MD (dB)

-5.2 (-9.6, -2.5)

-27.86-1.91

PSD (dB)

9.3±4.4

1.66-18.34

Baseline MD (dB)

-4.9 (-7.8, -1.3)

-28.15-1.48

Baseline PSD (dB)

8.5 (3.7, 12.5)

1.72-18.31

△MD (dB)

-0.8 (-1.8, -0.1)

-5.58-1.58

△PSD (dB)

0.9 (-0.2, 1.8)

-2.75-6.67

GAT: Goldmann applanation tonometer; IOP: Intraocular pressure; IOPcc: Corneal compensated intraocular pressure; IOPg: Goldmann estimated intraocular pressure; CRF: Corneal resistance factor; CH: Corneal hysteresis; CCT: Central corneal thickness; MD: Mean deviation; PSD: Pattern standard deviation. Data are skewed distribution and presented as median (IR).

 

Patients were divided into four groups according to the m△MD over 3y (Figure 1). The median, P25 and P75 value of the m△MD in the four groups are -2.1 (-3.2, -1.9) dB; -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9) dB; -0.5 (-0.6, -0.3) dB and 0.4 (0.1, 0.8) dB respectively. The data-box plots of CH, CRF, IOPcc and IOPg for 4 groups were shown in Figure 2. And findings were compared between the upper 25th percentile group (slow progression group, 21 eyes in total) and the lower 25th percentile group (rapid progression group, 21 eyes in total). Patient age, gender and the numbers of antiglaucoma eyedrops did not significantly differ between the two groups (P=0.484, 1.000, 0.396 respectively). There were no statistically significant differences of the parameters that may affect ORA results such as corneal curvature or corneal refractive power between the two groups (P=0.106, 0.101, respectively). And there were no significant differences in GAT, GATmax or GATavg between two groups (P=0.142, 0.890, 0.966, respectively).

Ying Hong1

Figure 1 Delta MD of all patients over 3y.

Ying Hong2

Figure 2 The data-box plots of CH, CRF, IOPcc and IOPg for 4 groups.

 

ORA results showed that the average IOPcc in the rapid progression group was 15.8 mm Hg, significantly higher than that in the slow group (13.5 mm Hg) (P<0.001). The average IOPg in the rapid group was 12.8 mm Hg, significantly higher than that in the slow group (11.2 mm Hg) (P=0.006). The difference between IOPcc and IOPg was 3.0 mm Hg in the rapid group, significantly higher than 2.3 mm Hg in the slow group (P=0.035). The difference between IOPcc and GAT was 3.8 mm Hg in the rapid group, significantly higher than 1.9 mm Hg in the slow group (P=0.004).

The average CH in the rapid group was 8.4 mm Hg, significantly lower than 9.3 mm Hg in the slow group (P=0.009). The average CRF in the rapid group was 7.9 mm Hg, which was lower than 8.2 mm Hg in the slow group, but the difference did not reach significance (P=0.310). There was no significant difference in CCT between the two groups (P=0.849).

At baseline, MD did not significantly differ between the rapid and slow group (P=0.134) but PSD significantly differ between the two groups (P=0.037). After 3y, there was a significant difference. MD and PSD were -8.8 dB and 10.4 dB in the rapid group, but -2.1 dB and 6.4 dB in the slow group (P=0.001, 0.002, respectively). Therefore, the VF change was also significantly different between the two groups, m△MD and m△PSD were -2.1 dB and 1.9 dB in the rapid group, but 0.4 dB and -1 dB in the slow group (P<0.001, 0.036 respectively) (Table 3).

Table 3 The comparison of the worst and best 25th percentile group

Characteristics

Rapid (n=21)

Slow (n=21)

P

Age

60.9±12.2

62.2±12.9

0.484

Gender (M/F)

10/11

11/10

1.000

Eyedrops

1.4±0.9

1.2±0.9

0.396

Corneal curvature

7.73±0.23

7.65±0.16

0.106

Corneal refractive power

43.67±1.29

44.13±0.91

0.101

GAT (mm Hg)

12.1±1.4

11.5±1.3

0.142

GATmax

14 (14, 14.5)

14 (13.5, 14)

0.890

GATavg

12 (12, 12)

12 (11.5, 12.5)

0.966

IOPcc (mm Hg)

15.8±1.8

13.5±2.1

＜0.001

IOPg (mm Hg)

12.8±2.0

11.2±1.6

0.006

IOPcc-IOPg (mm Hg)

3.0±1.3

2.3±1.1

0.035

IOPcc-GAT (mm Hg)

3.8±2.1

1.9±1.8

0.004

CRF (mm Hg)

7.9±1.3

8.2±0.9

0.310

CH (mm Hg)

8.4±1.1

9.3±1.1

0.009

CCT (μm)

516.1±28.2

515.3±25.0

0.849

MD (dB)

-8.8 (-11.4, -3.4)

-2.1 (-5.5, 0.1)

0.001

PSD (dB)

10.4±4.6

6.4±3.7

0.002

Baseline MD (dB)

-5.4 (-9.3, -1.1)

-2.9 (-5.7, -0.6)

0.134

Baseline PSD (dB)

8.9±5.2

6.1±3.8

0.037

△MD (dB)

-2.1 (-3.2, -1.9)

0.4 (0.1, 0.8)

＜0.001

△PSD (dB)

1.9 (0.3, 2.6)

-1 (-0.7, 1.4)

0.036

Data are skewed distribution and presented as median (IR).

 

In bivariate correlation analysis, the Pearson correlation coefficient of CH, CRF etc. were listed in Table 4. Briefly, IOPcc, IOPcc-GAT and CH were significant correlated with m△MD (r=-0.292, -0.312, 0.228 respectively and P=0.008, 0.004 and 0.039 respectively).

Table 4 The Pearson correlation coefficient of bivariate correlation analysis

Characteristics

r

P

Age

-0.044

0.693

Corneal curvature

-0.058

0.606

Corneal refractive power

0.056

0.619

GAT (mm Hg)

-0.020

0.860

GATmax

0.006

0.960

GATavg

0.109

0.330

IOPcc (mm Hg)

-0.292

0.008

IOPg (mm Hg)

-0.206

0.063

IOPcc-IOPg (mm Hg)

-0.191

0.085

IOPcc-GAT (mm Hg)

-0.312

0.004

CRF (mm Hg)

0.106

0.344

CH (mm Hg)

0.228

0.039

CCT (μm)

-0.042

0.709

 

DISCUSSION

The current study investigated whether there was difference of corneal biomechanical properties in NTG patients with different VF progression speed. The results demonstrated that in NTG patients whose GAT-IOP did not exceed the mid-teens during the recent 3y, relatively rapid VF progression occurred in patients with rather high IOPcc, rather low CH and relatively large difference between IOPcc and GAT. IOPcc and CH were significantly correlated with VF progression. These findings indicated that IOPcc and CH might be associated with VF progression in NTG patients.

Recently, there have been some studies focusing on corneal biomechanical properties, the accuracy of IOP measurement and VF progression. The study by Congdon et al[13] in 2006 included 230 subjects (POAG, suspected POAG and ocular hypertension) and showed that neither CCT nor CH was related to VF progression. However, other studies suggested that there was relationship between corneal biomechanical properties and VF progression[2,12,14-15]. Anand et al[12] compared CH and VF asymmetry in open angle glaucoma. Their findings demonstrated that CH, CRF and IOPcc were risk factors for worse VF. Mansouri et al[14] compared corneal biomechanical properties and VF between glaucoma patients and suspected glaucoma patients and found worse CH, CRF and CCT values in the glaucoma group. De Moraes et al[2] categorized different types of glaucoma patients based on whether VF progressed and concluded that CH and CCT are associated with VF progression. Most recently, a prospective longitudinal study by Medeiros et al[15] claimed that baseline CH and baseline GAT were associated with the risk of glaucoma progression. A summary of recent research is presented in Table 5. Our study differed from the previous studies are all of the patients included in the current study were Asian and NTG patients. A group comprised of a single race might demonstrate fewer anatomic differences than a group comprised of different races[21].

Table 5 Summary of recent similar researches

Authors

Eye/Patient

Diagnosis

MD (dB)

PSD (dB)

GAT

 (mm Hg)

CH

(mm Hg)

CRF

IOPcc

(mm Hg)

Associated with worse VF

Congdon et al[13]

N/A/230

POAG; POAG suspect;

OH

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Neither nor CH

Anand et al[12]

234/117

POAG with asymmetric VF

Worse eye

Worse eye

14

Worse eye

Worse eye

Worse eye

CH; CRF; IOPcc

-11.2±6.4

9.6±3.2

8.2±1.9

8.6±2.0

17.4

Better eye

Better eye

Better eye

Better eye

Better eye

-2.1±2.5

3.2±2.3

8.9±1.9

8.8±2.1

16.9

Mansouri et al[14]

299/191

Glaucoma; glaucoma suspect

Glaucoma

Glaucoma

Glaucoma

Glaucoma

Glaucoma

Glaucoma

CH; CRF

-3.3±3.3

4.0±3.0

15.0±5.6

9.4±1.7

9.4±2.0

16.6±5.4

Suspect -0.38±1.6

Suspect

1.6±0.9

Suspect 16.6±4.5 (IOPg)

Suspect 10.4±1.7

Suspect 10.7±2.1

Suspect 6.9±4.1

De Moraes et al[2]

153/153

POAG; NTG; XFG; ACG; JOAG; PG

Progress

Progress

Progress

Progress

Progress

Progress

CH

-5.3±4.1

4.7±3.0

15.3±3.7

7.5±1.4

7.6±1.3

18.0±5.3

Non-prog

Non-prog

Non-prog

Non-prog

Non-prog

Non-prog

-6.5±6.8

5.4±4.3

14.7±3.9

9.0±1.8

8.9±2.0

16.5±5.0

Medeiros et al[15]

114/68

POAG

Baseline -2.45±3.22

Baseline 3.32±2.84

Baseline 16.1±3.8

Baseline 9.5±1.7

N/A

N/A

Baseline; CH; baseline GAT

 

The findings of the current study concurred with recent articles suggesting that corneal biomechanical properties were associated with VF change[2,12,14-15]. This difference between IOPcc and GAT was similar to what was found in other studies[2,12]. The VF loss of approximately 0.3 dB per year which did not reach the progression standard of 1 dB per year[22], indicating that the patients included in the current study were relatively well controlled. These results of the comparison of rapid progression group and slow progression group indicate that patients showing rapid progression had rather high IOPcc, rather low CH which along with relatively large difference between IOPcc and GAT. This finding suggests that the IOP values obtained of such patients during follow up were underestimated. In such cases, the optic nerve might be chronically exposed to relatively high IOP resulting in obvious progression of VF.

There are lots of experimental and clinical evidence that the biomechanical properties of the eyeball may be related to those of the optic nerve complex[23-27]. Scleral stiffness and collagen fiber organization influence IOP-induced deformation of the optic nerve head in a computer model[27]. Downs et al[24] reported a change in the viscoelastic properties of peripapillary sclera on exposure to chronic IOP elevations in monkey eyes with glaucoma. Another study reported that monkey eyes with stiff or thick sclera seemed to be less prone to biomechanical changes in response to chronic IOP elevation[26]. Another experimental study found an association between higher CH and greater optic nerve deformation when IOP was artificially elevated in glaucoma eyes[25]. We think the biomechanical properties of the eyeball in NTG patients may also be related to those of the optic nerve complex. So it may explain why the VF progress rapidly of NTG patients with rather high IOPcc and rather low CH. But it remains unclear whether there is a causal relationship between CH and VF progression or not[2,12-15]. It may be that the corneal biomechanical properties change first, then compliance of the eyeball to IOP decreases and pressure on the optic nerve head increases, finally causing retina nerve fiber layer defects (RNFLD) and glaucomatous VF change. Another possibility is that lower CH presents as a result of chronic IOP elevation, similar to optic disc cupping and RNFLD. A third possibility is that these are simultaneous but independent changes. Further research is needed to clarify the nature of the association.

As far as was concerned, unlike ocular hypertension treatment study[28], we did not find was associated with VF progression in our study. This may be because the patients in their study had hypertension, while our study investigated NTG. And other studies did not find any relationship between and VF progression too[12-13,15,25,29].

There are several limitations in current study. First, it is a small sample study. It is because the inclusion criteria were very strict. Although this choice reduced the number of patients, it increased the homogeneity and reduced the influence of other confounding factors. Second, both eyes of some patients were included in this study, but only one eye of each patient was compared in the two groups. Third, because of the retrospective nature of the study, the baseline corneal biomechanical properties of the patients were not available.

The current study demonstrated that relatively rapid VF progression occurred in NTG patients with rather high IOPcc, rather low CH and relatively large difference between IOPcc and GAT. These findings indicated that IOPcc and CH were associated with VF progression in NTG patients.

Since treatment to decrease IOP is the only therapy confirmed by evidence-based medicine for controlling the progression of VF in NTG patients, the “target” IOP should take corneal biomechanical properties into consideration. IOPcc is significantly higher than GAT in those who appear to progress faster. So IOPcc may be a better method of monitoring IOP in NTG patients and patients with low CH should undergo more thorough investigation and careful monitoring.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Conflicts of Interest: Hong Y, None; Shoji N, None; Morita T, None; Hirasawa K, None; Matsumura K, None; Kasahara M, None; Shimizu K, None.


REFERENCES
1 Iwase A, Suzuki Y, Araie M, Yamamoto T, Abe H, Shirato S, Kuwayama Y, Mishima HK, Shimizu H, Tomita G, Inoue Y, Kitazawa Y, Tajimi Study Group, Japan Glaucoma Society. The prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma in Japanese: the Tajimi Study. Ophthalmology 2004;111(9):1641-1648. [CrossRef]

2 De Moraes CV, Hill V, Tello C, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Lower corneal hysteresis is associated with more rapid glaucomatous visual field progression. J Glaucoma 2012;21(4):209-213. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

3 Bell K, Gramlich OW, Von Thun Und Hohenstein-Blaul N, Beck S, Funke S, Wilding C, Pfeiffer N, Grus FH. Does autoimmunity play a part in the pathogenesis of glaucoma? Prog Retin Eye Res 2013;36:199-216. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4 Joachim SC, Reinehr S, Kuehn S, Laspas P, Gramlich OW, Kuehn M, Tischoff I, VON Pein HD, Dick HB, Grus FH. Immune response against ocular tissues after immunization with optic nerve antigens in a model of autoimmune glaucoma. Mol Vis 2013;19:1804-1814. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

5 Krizaj D, Ryskamp DA, Tian N, Tezel G, Mitchell CH, Slepak VZ, Shestopalov VI. From mechanosensitivity to inflammatory responses: new players in the pathology of glaucoma. Curr Eye Res 2014;39(2):105-119. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PMC free article]

6 Shazly TA, Aljajeh M, Latina MA. Autoimmune basis of glaucoma. Semin Ophthalmol 2011;26(4-5):278-281. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

7 Huang W, Fan Q, Wang W, Zhou M, Laties AM, Zhang X. Collagen: a potential factor involved in the pathogenesis of glaucoma. Med Sci Monit Basic Res 2013;19:237-240. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PMC free article]

8 Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J, Bostrom A, Nee M, Stamper RL. Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relationship to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123(11):1532-1537. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

9 Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma  2006;15(5):364-370. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

10 Morita T, Shoji N, Kamiya K, Fujimura F, Shimizu K. Corneal biomechanical properties in normal-tension glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol 2012;90(1):e48-e53. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11 Morita T, Shoji N, Kamiya K, Hagishima M, Fujimura F, Shimizu K. Intraocular pressure measured by dynamic contour tonometer and ocular response analyzer in normal tension glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2010;248(1):73-77. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

12 Anand A, De Moraes CG, Teng CC, Tello C, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Corneal hysteresis and visual field asymmetry in open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51(12):6514-6518. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13 Congdon NG, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, Grover D, Quigley HA. Central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis associated with glaucoma damage. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;141(5):868-875. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14 Mansouri K, Leite MT, Weinreb RN, Tafreshi A, Zangwill LM, Medeiros FA. Association between corneal biomechanical properties and glaucoma severity. Am J Ophthalmol 2012;153(3):419-427. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PMC free article]

15 Medeiros FA, Meira-Freitas D, Lisboa R, Kuang TM, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN. Corneal hysteresis as a risk factor for glaucoma progression: a prospective longitudinal study. Ophthalmology 2013;120(8):1533-1540. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PMC free article]

16 Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, Johnson GJ. The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. Br J Ophthalmol 2002:86(2):238-242. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PMC free article]

17 Aihara M, Yamagami J, Araie M, Yamamoto S. Relationship of the office intraocular pressure (IOP) to diurnal fluctuation of IOP in low-tension glaucoma: a multivariate analysis. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi  1992:96(8):1007-1013. [PubMed]

18 Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31(1):156-162. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

19 Lam AK, Chen D, Tse J. The usefulness of waveform score from the ocular response analyzer. Optom Vis Sci 2010;87(3):195-199. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

20 Laiquzzaman M, Bhojwani R, Cunliffe I, Shah S. Diurnal variation of ocular hysteresis in normal subjects: relevance in clinical context. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2006;34(2):114-118. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

21 Leite MT, Alencar LM, Gore C, Weinreb RN, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, Medeiros FA. Comparison of corneal biomechanical properties between healthy blacks and whites using the Ocular Response Analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol 2010;150(2):163-168. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PMC free article]

22 Smith SD, Katz J, Quigley HA. Analysis of progressive change in automated visual fields in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996;37(7):1419-1428. [CrossRef]

23 Bochmann F, Ang GS, Azuara-Blanco A. Lower corneal hysteresis in glaucoma patients with acquired pit of the optic nerve (APON). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008;246(5):735-738. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

24 Downs JC, Suh JK, Thomas KA, Bellezza AJ, Hart RT, Burgoyne CF. Viscoelastic material properties of the peripapillary sclera in normal and early-glaucoma monkey eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46(2):540-546. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

25 Wells AP, Garway-Heath DF, Poostchi A, Wong T, Chan KC, Sachdev N. Corneal hysteresis but not corneal thickness correlates with optic nerve surface compliance in glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci  2008;49(8):3262-3268. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

26 Girard MJ, Suh JK, Bottlang M, Burgoyne CF, Downs JC. Biomechanical changes in the sclera of monkey eyes exposed to chronic IOP elevations. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci  2011;52(8):5656-5669. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PMC free article]

27 Sigal IA, Yang H, Roberts MD, Burgoyne CF, Downs JC. IOP-induced lamina cribrosa displacement and scleral canal expansion: an analysis of factor interactions using parameterized eye-specific models. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52(3):1896-1907. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PMC free article]

28 Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, Parrish RK 2nd, Wilson MP, Kass MA. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120(6):714-720. [CrossRef]

29 Nemesure B, Wu SY, Hennis A, Leske MC, Barbados Eye Study Group. Corneal thickness and intraocular pressure in the Barbados eye studies. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121(2):240-244. [CrossRef]

[Top]