Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Corneal biomechanics in different age groups

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To report on the corneal biomechanical characteristics, namely the corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), as well as the intraocular pressure (IOP) goldman compensated (IOPg), and the cornea compensated (IOPcc), using the ocular response analyzer (ORA) in different age groups in a cohort of normal individuals from the second decade to the seventh decade and beyond.

Patients and methods

The study was a cross-sectional survey conducted on 997 eyes of 508 normal individuals presenting for a routine ophthalmic examination at Alexandria Main University Hospital in Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. The study subjects were age stratified into decades (10–20, 21–30, 31–40, 41–50, > 50) and the ORA parameters (CH, CRF, IOPg, IOPcc) reported and stratified. Correlations were sought between the ORA parameters and the age, gender, and laterality.

Results

The study was conducted on 997 (502 right) eyes of 508 (234 males) normal individuals. The mean ± SD ages of the study groups were 14.7 ± 3.2, 25.9 ± 3.0, 35.3 ± 2.8, 44.6 ± 2.9, and 61.1 ± 7.7 years. The mean ± SD of the CH in the study groups were 10.9 ± 2.4, 9.8 ± 1.5, 9.8 ± 1.4, 9.7 ± 1.7, and 9.5 ± 1.6 mmHg and of the CRF were 10.9 ± 2.4, 9.5 ± 1.7, 9.4 ± 1.8, 9.6 ± 1.9, and 9.6 ± 1.8 mmHg. A statistically significant negative correlation was found between age and each of CH and CRF. IOPcc demonstrated a fairly constant trend in the different age groups whereas IOPg demonstrated an initial decline followed by a gradual rise over time.

Conclusion

The corneal biomechanical properties CH and CRF decrease with age. IOPg and IOPcc change minimally with age.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lu TW, Chang CF (2012) Biomechanics of human movement and its clinical applications. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 28:s13–s25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Oxford dictionaries. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/biomechanics. Accessed 16 Jan 2019

  3. Kotecha A (2007) What biomechanical properties of the cornea are relevant for the clinician? Surv Ophthalmol 52(Suppl 2):S109–S114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nyquist GW (1968) Rheology of the cornea: experimental techniques and results. Exp Eye Res 7(2):183–188

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ambrósio R Jr, Correia FF, Lopes B, Salomão MQ, Luz A, Dawson DG, Elsheikh A, Vinciguerra R, Vinciguerra P, Roberts CJ (2017) Corneal biomechanics in ectatic diseases: refractive surgery implications. Open Ophthalmol J 2017(11):176–193. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874364101711010176.eCollection

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Costin BR, Fleming GP, Weber PA, Mahmoud AM, Roberts CJ (2014) Corneal biomechanical properties affect Goldmann applanation tonometry in primary open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma 23(2):69–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e318269804b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vellara HR, Patel DV (2015) Biomechanical properties of the keratoconic cornea: a review. Clin Exp Optom. 98(1):31–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kotecha A, Elsheikh A, Roberts CR, Zhu H, Garway-Heath DF (2006) Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47(12):5337–5347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaushik S, Pandav SS, Banger A, Aggarwal K, Gupta A (2012) Relationship between corneal biomechanical properties, central corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure across the spectrum of glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 153(5):840–849.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2011.10.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zareei A, Razeghinejad MR, Salouti R (2018) Corneal biomechanical properties and thickness in primary congenital glaucoma and normal eyes: a comparative study. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol 7(2):68–72

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Wong TT, Wong TY, Foster PJ, Crowston JG, Fong CW, Aung T, SiMES Study Group (2009) The relationship of intraocular pressure with age, systolic blood pressure, and central corneal thickness in an Asian population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50(9):4097–4102. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.08-2822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Luce DA (2005) Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:156–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sharifipour F, Panahi-Bazaz M, Bidar R, Idani A, Cheraghian B (2016) Age-related variations in corneal biomechanical properties. J Curr Ophthalmol 28(3):117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joco.2016.05.004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Qiu K, Lu X, Zhang R, Wang G, Zhang M (2016) Corneal biomechanics determination in healthy myopic subjects. J Ophthalmol. 2016:2793516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Yeung I, Pan X, Roberts C (2009) The use of the Ocular Response Analyser to determine corneal hysteresis in eyes before and after excimer laser refractive surgery. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 32(3):123–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2009.02.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Valbon BF, Ambrósio R Jr, Fontes BM, Alves MR (2013) Effects of age on corneal deformation by non-contact tonometry integrated with an ultra-high-speed (UHS) Scheimpflug camera. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 76(4):229–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Oncel B, Dinc UA, Gorgun E, Yalvaç BI (2009) Diurnal variation of corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure in normal subjects. Eur J Ophthalmol 19(5):798–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tonnu PA, Ho T, Newson T et al (2005) The influence of central corneal thickness and age on intraocular pressure measured by pneumotonometry, non-contact tonometry, the Tono-Pen XL, and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol 89(7):851–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bayoumi NH, Bessa AS, El Massry AA (2010) Ocular response analyzer and Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study of findings. J Glaucoma 19(9):627–631. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181ca7e01

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was not funded by any institution or organization or any other funding body.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ophthalmology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, 311, Horeya Avenue, Sporting, 10th Floor, App 1004, Alexandria, Egypt

    Ahmed Abdel Karim El Massry, Amr Ahmed Said, Ihab Mohamed Osman, Amr Saad Bessa, Eman Nabil Elsayed & Nader Hussein Lotfy Bayoumi

  2. Ophthalmology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Port Said University, Port Said, Egypt

    Mohammed Ahmed Elmasry

Authors
  1. Ahmed Abdel Karim El Massry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amr Ahmed Said
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ihab Mohamed Osman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amr Saad Bessa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mohammed Ahmed Elmasry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eman Nabil Elsayed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nader Hussein Lotfy Bayoumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nader Hussein Lotfy Bayoumi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest with any of the stated materials in the study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The study was conducted in Alexandria Main University Hospital, Alexandria Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Egypt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

El Massry, A.A.K., Said, A.A., Osman, I.M. et al. Corneal biomechanics in different age groups. Int Ophthalmol 40, 967–974 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01273-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01273-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation