1 / 10

Financial Disclosures

CORNEAL HYSTERESIS MEASURED WITH OCULAR RESPONSE ANALYZER IN GLAUCOMATOUS, HYPERTENSIVE AND NORMAL EYES. Olivia ABITBOL (1,2), Jihene BOUDEN (1,2), Serge DOAN (1,2), Thanh HOANG-XUAN (1,2), Damien GATINEL (1,2) Fondation Rothschild (1), Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard (2), Paris, FRANCE.

merv
Download Presentation

Financial Disclosures

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CORNEAL HYSTERESIS MEASURED WITH OCULAR RESPONSE ANALYZER IN GLAUCOMATOUS, HYPERTENSIVE AND NORMAL EYES. Olivia ABITBOL (1,2), Jihene BOUDEN (1,2), Serge DOAN (1,2), Thanh HOANG-XUAN (1,2), Damien GATINEL (1,2) Fondation Rothschild (1), Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard (2), Paris, FRANCE.

  2. Financial Disclosures None

  3. PURPOSE To identify differences in corneal hysteresis (CH) and central corneal thickness (CCT) between healthy, glaucomatous patients, and patients with ocular hypertension (OHT).

  4. METHODS • Retrospective observational study • We measured the CH (ORA) and ultrasonic CCT in 318 eyes of 161 patients. • Patients were divided in three groups: normal, OHT and glaucomatous. • For each patient, one eye was randomly selected. • We used a Student test to search for significant differences between the different groups (p<0.05).

  5. RESULTS: demographic variables of patients • No statistically significant age difference between normal and glaucoma patients (p=0.11) • Nor between normal and OHT patients (p=0.07). • Age difference between OHT and glaucoma subjects: statistically significant (p=0.015)

  6. RESULTS: mean values of CCT and CH for the different groups

  7. p=0.9 RESULTS: mean CH values in different groups CH (mm Hg) OHT Glaucoma normal p<0,05 p<0,05

  8. RESULTS • Mean CH and CCT were significantly lower in glaucomatous group than in normal and OHT groups. • However, the difference between the normal and OHT groups was not significant.

  9. DISCUSSION Our results are in agreement with Congdon et al.’s report, who postulated that as a thin CCT, a low CH could be an independent risk factor for glaucoma evolution.1 Several hypotheses can be made to explain these results: • First, IOP is under-estimated in patients with thin pachymetry.2 Similarly, a low CH value, (i.e “softer cornea”), could be responsible for under-estimation of IOP when measured with the Goldmann aplanation tonometer. • Second, it is possible that CCT and CH each correspond to risk factors for glaucoma, independent of IOP. Eyes with lower CH and/or thinner CCT than normal could indicate structural weakness. • Finally, as it is responsible for the optic nerve head’s lesions, chronic ocular hypertension could also be responsible for alterations in corneal structure, with subsequent reduction of the CH and CCT. 1. 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;141:868-75.

  10. CONCLUSION In our series, CH was lower in glaucomatous eyes than in OHT and normal eyes. Like CCT, CH could become an important clinical marker for glaucoma diagnosis and management.

More Related