Evidence Hub

Development and validation of a new intraocular pressure estimate for patients with soft corneas

Chen KJ, Eliasy A, Vinciguerra R, Abass A, Lopes BT, Vinciguerra P, Ambrósio R, Roberts CJ et al.

Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2019

722 participants · 20 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

To introduce and clinically validate a new method of estimating intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with keratoconus and soft corneas with the aim of significantly reducing dependence on corneal biomechanics.

SETTING

Vincieye Clinic, Milan, Italy, and Rio de Janeiro Corneal Tomography and Biomechanics Study Group, Brazil.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHOD

This study comprised participants enrolled at two hospitals on two continents. Numerical analysis based on the finite element method was performed to simulate the effect of tonometric air pressure of the Corvis ST dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer on eye globes with wide variations in thickness, geometry, and tissue. The numerical predictions of ocular behavior were used to develop a new algorithm to produce predictions of the biomechanically corrected IOP (bIOP) in eyes with a soft cornea (bIOPs). Predictions of the bIOPs were assessed in the keratoconic clinical datasets (because on average these corneas are softer) and compared with the previously developed bIOP algorithm predictions obtained for normal healthy eyes.

RESULTS

The study comprised 722 eyes (722 participants). The main outcome was the absence of a significant difference in IOP between healthy eyes and keratoconic eyes when the bIOP and bIOPs algorithms were used (P > .05). There was, however, a significant difference with the uncorrected Scheimpflug analyzer IOP in both groups (P < .001). Furthermore, the bIOPs predictions were significantly…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 722 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free