Advertisement

Geometrical characterization of the corneo-scleral transition in normal patients with Fourier domain optical coherence tomography

  • Mar Seguí-Crespo
  • Miguel Ángel Ariza-Gracia
  • Nelva de Luisa David Sixpene
  • David P. PiñeroEmail author
Original Paper
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To characterize the geometry at the corneo-scleral transition for a normal population and its correlation with other anatomic parameters of the eyeball.

Methods

Transversal epidemiologic study on a sample of 100 individuals (right eye) in different ethnic groups (Africans and Caucasians). All of them were examined with Fourier domain optical coherence tomography, auto-refractometer, topographer, and biometer to obtain the corneo-scleral angle (CSA) and additional clinical parameters. The dataset was analyzed to determine correlations between different anatomical parameters and nasal (CSAn) and temporal CSA (CSAt) values.

Results

The CSAt presents a significant but low correlation with the anterior chamber depth—ACD (r = 0.25; p = 0.024), the white-to-white (W–W) distance (r = 0.27; p = 0.022), and the anterior chamber volume (r = 0.25; p = 0.016). CSAn did not correlate significantly with any clinical variable, with all values being lower than 179° (concave). Ethic groups presented significant differences for pachymetry (Pac) and corneal volume (p = 0.033 and p = 0.014), being greater for Caucasians, and temporal corneo-iridial angle (p = 0.006), being greater for Africans. CSA presented and inverse correlation with age.

Conclusions

The CSAn presents a more concave profile for the normal population, whereas the CSAt presents a planar-convex profile with a great influence of age. In particular, the older the patient, the more convex the CSAt is. This age-related evolution of the CSAt and the concavity on the nasal direction must be considered when prescribing scleral contact lenses or when performing limbal incisions during refractive interventions.

Keywords

Corneo-scleral angle Scleral contact lenses Optical coherence tomography Corneal topography 

Notes

Funding

The author David P Piñero has been supported by the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness of Spain within the program Ramón y Cajal, RYC-2016-20471. No additional funding was received for the performance of this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the ethics committee of the University of Alicante (Alicante, Spain) 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.

References

  1. 1.
    Van der Worp E, Bornman D, Ferreira DL, Faria-Ribeiro M, Garcia-Porta N, González-Meijome JM (2014) Modern scleral contact lenses: a review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 37:240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meier D (1992) Das cornea-skleral-profil—ein kriterium individueller kontaktlinsenanpassung. Die Kontaktlinse 10:4–11Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Worp E (2010) A Guide to Scleral Lens Fitting [monograph online]. Scleral Lens Education Society. Pacific University LibrariesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hall LA, Hunt C, Young G, Wolffsohn J (2013) Factors affecting corneoscleral topography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:3691–3701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang C, Xia X, Tian B, Zhou S (2015) Comparison of Fourier-domain and time-domain optical coherence tomography in the measurement of thinnest corneal thickness in keratoconus. J Ophthalmol 2015:402925Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prakash G, Agarwal A, Jacob S, Kumar DA, Agarwal A, Banerjee R (2009) Comparison of Fourier-domain and time-domain optical coherence tomography for assessment of corneal thickness and intersession repeatability. Am J Ophthalmol 148:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wylegała E, Teper S, Nowińska AK, Milka M, Dobrowolski D (2009) Anterior segment imaging: Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography versus time-domain optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1410–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lilliefors HW (1969) On the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for the exponential distribution with mean unknown. J Am Stat Assoc 64:387–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hall LA, Young G, Wolffsohn JS, Riley C (2011) The influence of corneoscleral topography on soft contact lens fit. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:6801–6806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Consejo A, Llorens-Quintana C, Radhakrishnan H, Iskander DR (2017) Mean shape of the human limbus. J Cataract Refract Surg 43:667–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Consejo A, Rozema JJ (2018) Scleral shape and its correlations with corneal astigmatism. Cornea 37: 1047-52.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29521692
  12. 12.
    Behndig A, Montan P, Lundström M, Zetterström C, Kugelberg M (2014) Gender differences in biometry prediction error and intra-ocular lens power calculation formula. Acta Ophthalmol 92:759–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tan B, Graham AD, Tsechpenakis G, Lin MC (2014) A novel analytical method using OCT to describe the corneoscleral junction. Optom Vis Sci 91:650–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iskander DR, Wachel P, Simpson PN, Consejo A, Jesus DA (2016) Principles of operation, accuracy and precision of an Eye Surface Profiler. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 36:266–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DeNaeyer G, Sanders DR (2018) sMap3D corneo-scleral topographer repeatability in scleral lens patients. Eye Contact Lens 44(Suppl 1):S259–S264Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mar Seguí-Crespo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Miguel Ángel Ariza-Gracia
    • 3
  • Nelva de Luisa David Sixpene
    • 1
  • David P. Piñero
    • 4
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Optics, Pharmacology and AnatomyUniversity of AlicanteSan Vicente del RaspeigSpain
  2. 2.Public Health Research GroupUniversity of AlicanteAlicanteSpain
  3. 3.Institute of Engineering of Aragón (I3A)University of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain
  4. 4.Department of OphthalmologyVithas Medimar International HospitalAlicanteSpain

Personalised recommendations