Structural and biomechanical corneal differences between patients suffering from primary congenital glaucoma and healthy volunteers

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorPerucho González, Lucía
dc.contributor.authorSáenz Francés, Federico
dc.contributor.authorMorales Fernández, Laura
dc.contributor.authorMartínez De La Casa Fernández-Borrella, José María
dc.contributor.authorMéndez Hernández, Carmen Dora
dc.contributor.authorSantos Bueso, Enrique Miguel
dc.contributor.authorBrookes, John L.
dc.contributor.authorGarcía Feijoo, Julián
dc.dateReceived on April 10th, 2016; accepted on June 28th, 2016; version of record online on august 29, 2016; issue online february 15, 2017
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-17T22:05:54Z
dc.date.available2023-06-17T22:05:54Z
dc.date.issued2017-02-15
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To determine whether a set of ocular morphometric and biomechanical variables are able to discriminate between healthy volunteers and patients suffering from primary congenital glaucoma (PCG). Methods: Case-control study in which 66 patients with PCG and 94 age-matched healthy subjects were evaluated using ocular response analyser (ORA) to record corneal biomechanical properties. Topographic corneal variables were obtained using the Pentacam in both groups. To determine the ability to discern between both groups, a multivariate binary logistic model was constructed. The outcome was the diagnosis of PCG and the predictors; the corneal variables analysed along with their first-term interactions. Sensitivity and specificity of this model along with the area under the receiver characteristic operating curve (AUC of ROC) were determined. Results: The best model to discriminate between both groups included the following predictors: corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), posterior maximum elevation (PME), anterior maximum elevation (AME) and central corneal thickness (CCT). This model, for a cut-point of 50%, presents a sensitivity of 86.67%, a specificity of 86.89% and an AUC of the ROC curve of 93.16% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88.97-97.35]. The adjusted odds ratios of those predictors which showed a significant discriminating capacity were as follows: for CH, 0.27 (95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.46); for CRF, 2.13 (95% CI: 1.33-3.40); for PME, 1.06 (95% CI: 1.01-1.12); and for AME, 1.35 (95% CI: 1.10-1.66). Conclusion: Corneal hysteresis (CH), CRF, PME and AME are able to discern between patients with PCG and healthy controls. This fact suggests that there are structural and biomechanical differences between these groups.en
dc.description.departmentUnidad Docente de Inmunología, Oftalmología y ORL
dc.description.facultyFac. de Óptica y Optometría
dc.description.refereedTRUE
dc.description.statuspub
dc.eprint.idhttps://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/44584
dc.identifier.citationPerucho González, L., Sáenz Francés, F., Morales fernández, L. et al. «Structural and Biomechanical Corneal Differences between Patients Suffering from Primary Congenital Glaucoma and Healthy Volunteers». Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 95, n.o 2, marzo de 2017. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13212.
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/aos.13212
dc.identifier.issn1755-375X
dc.identifier.officialurlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.13212
dc.identifier.relatedurlhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aos.13212/full
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/18058
dc.issue.number2
dc.journal.titleActa Ophthalmologica
dc.language.isoeng
dc.page.final112
dc.page.initial107
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd.
dc.rights.accessRightsrestricted access
dc.subject.cdu612.841
dc.subject.cdu617.7-007.681
dc.subject.cdu617.749
dc.subject.keywordPentacam
dc.subject.keywordCorneal biomechanics
dc.subject.keywordCorneal topography
dc.subject.keywordOcular response analyser
dc.subject.keywordPrimary congenital glaucoma
dc.subject.ucmOftalmología
dc.subject.ucmAnatomía ocular
dc.subject.unesco3201.09 Oftalmología
dc.titleStructural and biomechanical corneal differences between patients suffering from primary congenital glaucoma and healthy volunteersen
dc.typejournal article
dc.volume.number95
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication273a99c3-2c9f-4dd0-8939-b7ff3593124c
relation.isAuthorOfPublication533dd90f-2b34-4a5f-9cf8-ab8d19454edd
relation.isAuthorOfPublication00c0a4cb-e889-4b14-947d-36305b436949
relation.isAuthorOfPublication558b8023-6d72-4dff-9f99-2e60f6f31843
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery558b8023-6d72-4dff-9f99-2e60f6f31843
Download
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
structural and biomechanical-Wiley-2016.pdf
Size:
198.56 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
Collections
Artículos