Computational corneal biomechanics in the clinic
PDF

How to Cite

1.
Ariza-Gracia M Ángel, Piñero Llorens DP, Rodríguez Matas JF, Calvo Calzada B. Computational corneal biomechanics in the clinic. MAIO [Internet]. 2018 Jun. 18 [cited 2022 Jun. 25];2(2):42-6. Available from: https://www.maio-journal.com/index.php/MAIO/article/view/70

Copyright notice

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work twelve (12) months after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.

  2. After 12 months from the date of publication, authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Keywords

corneal biomechanics; material characterization; non-contact tonometry; patient-specific

Abstract

Corneal topographers and air-puff devices aim at completely characterizing so-called corneal biomechanics, a collection of features that describes corneal behavior. The European FP7 project (PopCorn) was born with the goal of integrating both technologies. Among the novelties, computational models were included as an integral part of the clinical assessment. Automatic patient-specific (P-S) reconstruction of the cornea, alongside material prediction based on finite element simulations, optimization, and fitting were used to strive forward in a priori surgical planning. Both methodologies show good performance in retrieving the P-S geometry of the cornea (error < 1%) and the maximum deformation amplitude of a non-contact tonometry (error ~ 5%). Nevertheless, physiological and non-physiological corneas cannot be classified solely in terms of material, at least with a single experiment. Eventually, and due to the interplay of different factors (geometry, material, and pressure), results coming from air-puff devices should be handled with care.

https://doi.org/10.35119/maio.v2i2.70
PDF

References

Piñero DP, Alcón N. Corneal biomechanics: A review. Clin Exp Optom. 2015;98(2):107-116.

Ariza-Gracia MÁ, Zurita JF, Piñero DP, Rodriguez-Matas JF, Calvo B. Coupled biomechanical response of the cornea assessed by non-contact tonometry. A simulation study. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0121486.

Ariza-Gracia MÁ, Zurita J, Piñero DP, Calvo B, Rodríguez-Matas JF. Automatized patient-specific methodology for numerical determination of biomechanical corneal response. Ann Biomed Eng.2016;44(5):1753–1772.

Ariza-Gracia MÁ, Redondo S, Llorens DP, Calvo B, Rodriguez-Matas JF. A predictive tool for determining patient-specific mechanical properties of human corneal tissue. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 2016;317:226–247.

Pandolfi A, Holzapfel GA. Three-dimensional modeling and computational analysis of the human cornea considering distributed collagen fibril orientations. J Biomech Eng. 2008;130(6):61006. doi:/10.1115/1.2982251.

Elsheikh A, Alhasso D, Rama P. Biomechanical properties of human and porcine corneas. Exp Eye Res. 2008;86(5):783–790.

Huseynova T, Waring 4th GO, Roberts C, Krueger RR, Tomita M. Corneal biomechanics as a function of intraocular pressure and pachymetry by dynamic infrared signal and Scheimpflug imaging analysis in normal eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(4):885–893. doi:/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.12.024.

Simonini I, Angelillo M, Pandolfi A. Theoretical and numerical analysis of the corneal air puff test. J Mech Phys Solids. 2016;93:118–134. doi:/10.1016/j.jmps.2016.04.012.

PDF