» Articles » PMID: 31011451

Structural and Biomechanical Corneal Differences Between Type 2 Diabetic and Nondiabetic Patients

Overview
Journal J Ophthalmol
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2019 Apr 24
PMID 31011451
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To analyze and compare corneal structural and biomechanical properties, characterized by corneal hysteresis (CH) and resistance factor (CRF), between patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), and determine the main ocular variables that influence them.

Methods: Sixty diabetic and 48 age- and sex-matched non-DM patients were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. The DM group was analyzed according to DM duration (<or ≥ 10 years), HbA1c levels (<or ≥ 7%), and presence of retinopathy. CH and CRF were evaluated using the Ocular Response Analyzer® (ORA). Central corneal thickness (CCT) was determined by Scheimpflug tomography (Pentacam® HR). Intraocular pressure was obtained with ORA (IOPcc) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (IOP-GAT). Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between demographical, clinical, and ocular variables with the biomechanical properties.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the CH and the CRF between DM and non-DM groups (=0.637 and =0.439, respectively). Also, there was no statistical difference between groups for the CCT, IOPcc, or IOP-GAT. Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that CH was positively associated with CCT ( < 0.001) and negatively associated with IOPcc ( < 0.001), while CRF was positively associated with CCT ( < 0.001) and IOPcc (=0.014).

Conclusion: The CCT and IOPcc were found to be the main parameters that affect corneal biomechanical properties both in diabetics and controls. In this study, there was no significant effect of DM type 2 on corneal biomechanics.

Citing Articles

Comparison of corneal endothelial cell morphology in type-2 diabetes and nondiabetics.

Firdous M, Ullah S, Shah M, Qayyum S, Ansari M, Aziz A Oman J Ophthalmol. 2024; 17(3):362-365.

PMID: 39651497 PMC: 11620312. DOI: 10.4103/ojo.ojo_80_24.


Relationship between hyperglycemia and intraocular pressure, corneal biomechanics, and corneal topography during the oral glucose tolerance test in nondiabetic patients.

Yildiz P, Kebapci M, Colak E, Mutlu F, Simsek T, Yildirim N Int Ophthalmol. 2024; 44(1):347.

PMID: 39138825 DOI: 10.1007/s10792-024-03264-w.


Corneal parameters in diabetics versus non-diabetics and correlation with various blood sugar parameters.

Pandey S, Singh A, Vannadil H, Agrawal M Rom J Ophthalmol. 2024; 68(2):128-134.

PMID: 39006342 PMC: 11238866. DOI: 10.22336/rjo.2024.24.


Corneal Epithelial Changes in Diabetic Patients: A Review.

Ladea L, Zemba M, Calancea M, Caltaru M, Dragosloveanu C, Coroleuca R Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(6).

PMID: 38542443 PMC: 10970528. DOI: 10.3390/ijms25063471.


Comparison of anterior segment parameters of the eye between type 2 diabetic with and without diabetic retinopathy and non-diabetic.

Narooie-Noori F, Asharlous A, Mirzajani A, Jafarzadehpur E, Behnia M, Khabazkhoob M Int J Ophthalmol. 2023; 16(4):571-578.

PMID: 37077477 PMC: 10089896. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2023.04.11.


References
1.
Vogel A, Dick H, Krummenauer F . Reproducibility of optical biometry using partial coherence interferometry : intraobserver and interobserver reliability. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27(12):1961-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(01)01214-7. View

2.
Wilkinson C, Ferris 3rd F, Klein R, Lee P, Agardh C, Davis M . Proposed international clinical diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema disease severity scales. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110(9):1677-82. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00475-5. View

3.
Luce D . Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31(1):156-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.10.044. View

4.
Medeiros F, Weinreb R . Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma. 2006; 15(5):364-70. DOI: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000212268.42606.97. View

5.
Kotecha A, Elsheikh A, Roberts C, Zhu H, Garway-Heath D . Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47(12):5337-47. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0557. View