Skip to main content
Browse Subject Areas

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Evaluation of corneal biomechanical properties using the ocular response analyzer and the dynamic Scheimpflug-Analyzer Corvis ST in high pressure and normal pressure open-angle glaucoma patients



To characterize differences in corneal biomechanics in high (HPG) and normal pressure (NPG) primary open-angle glaucoma, and its association to disease severity.


Corneal biomechanical properties were measured using the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and the dynamic Scheimpflug-Analyzer Corvis ST (CST). Disease severity was functionally assessed by automated perimetry (Humphrey field analyzer) and structurally with the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph. To avoid a possible falsification by intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness and age, which strongly influence ORA and CST measurements, group matching was performed. Linear mixed models and generalized estimating equations were used to consider inter-eye correlation.


Following group matching, 60 eyes of 38 HPG and 103 eyes of 60 NPG patients were included. ORA measurement revealed a higher CRF in HPG than in NPG (P < 0.001). Additionally, the CST parameter integrated radius (P < 0.001) was significantly different between HPG and NPG. The parameter SSI (P < 0.001) representing corneal stiffness was higher in HPG than in NPG. Furthermore, regression analysis revealed associations between biomechanical parameters and indicators of disease severity. In HPG, SSI correlated to RNFL thickness. In NPG, dependencies between biomechanical readings and rim area, MD, and PSD were shown.


Significant differences in corneal biomechanical properties were detectable between HPG and NPG patients which might indicate different pathophysiological mechanisms underlying in both entities. Moreover, biomechanical parameters correlated to functional and structural indices of diseases severity. A reduced corneal deformation measured by dynamic methods was associated to advanced glaucomatous damage.


Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is characterized by a progressive loss of retinal ganglion cells and an irreversible axon degeneration in the optic nerve leading to visual field defects up to severe vision loss. Despite its great clinical significance, the pathogenesis of the disease has not been fully clarified [1, 2]. An increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) is the main risk factor for POAG development and progression [1, 3], but also further mechanisms seem to play an important role. Possible aspects in the pathogenesis of the glaucomatous optic neuropathy are genetic components, autoimmunity, failures in axonal transport and lack of trophic factors, changes in electrical activity of cells and glutamate excitotoxicity [2, 4]. Furthermore, disturbance in retinal and optic nerve head (ONH) blood supply may be important. Vascular dysregulation and impaired neurovascular coupling, reduced perfusion pressure, vasospasm, formation of reactive oxygen species as well as a mechanical vascular compression may be involved [58]. In regard to the assumption of a mechanical vascular compression, chronic remodeling of the ONH connective tissue with progredient glaucomatous cupping [9, 10] could be an important mechanism. Thereby, the association between a reduction in central corneal thickness (CCT) and glaucoma progression [3] as well as changes in corneal biomechanical properties in POAG patients [1113] may indicate, that structural changes are not limited to the lamina cribrosa (LC), but rather affect the whole globe. In conformance, earlier studies reported stiffness changes of the sclera, the LC, the trabecular meshwork (TM) and the cornea [1417]. Increased stiffness of the LC and the peripapillary sclera may result in a reduced compliance at the ONH with a higher susceptibility to IOP-induced glaucomatous injury [14, 18]. Since direct accessibility of the LC, the sclera and the ONH is limited measurements of corneal biomechanical properties may serve as an indicator for structural ONH integrity [19, 20]. The ocular response analyzer (ORA; Reichert Inc., Depew NY, USA) and the dynamic Scheimpflug-Analyzer Corvis ST (CST; Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) offer the opportunity of a direct, non-invasive assessment of corneal biomechanical properties.

The aim of the study was to characterize glaucomatous changes in corneal biomechanics as a potential indicator of tissue remodeling of the whole globe, and to investigate its association with disease severity in POAG patients. Special attention was paid to differences between high pressure (HPG) and normal pressure glaucoma (NPG), thereby contributing to the understanding of the pathogenesis of glaucomatous optic neuropathy.


This prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Germany between January 2016 and July 2019. The study protocol adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committee of the University of Dresden (registered at NCT02959242). Patients with POAG admitted for a one-day in hospital routine glaucoma work up were consecutively included. Exclusion criteria were any preexisting corneal disease, ocular surgery in the past, diabetes mellitus, contact lens wear, systemic connective tissue diseases, pseudoexfoliation or other possible causes of secondary glaucoma and lacking capacity to consent.

The diagnosis of POAG was based on an open angle on gonioscopy, the presence of damage to the inner retinal layers on optical coherence tomography (OCT), characteristic ONH changes with thinning of the neuroretinal rim and glaucomatous cupping as well as corresponding visual field defects without any other ocular or systemic cause for visual field defects [1]. POAG patients were subdivided into a normal and a high pressure group, whereby NPG was defined as POAG with a history of untreated IOP ≤ 21 mmHg. The IOP-lowering medication was not discontinued.

A detailed ophthalmic examination of the anterior eye segment and the fundus as well as 24-hour Goldmann applanation tonometry were performed. The mean of six measurements taken at the following time-points was taken for the analyses: 1, 4, 7, and 10 pm at the slitlamp (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland), at midnight in a supine position with handheld Perkins MK3 tonometer (HS Clement Clark Ophthalmic, Haag-Streit UK), and at 7 am again at the slitlamp prior to the application of IOP-lowering medication. Automated perimetry was performed using the Humphrey field analyzer (Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard 30–2 program; Carl Zeiss Meditec. Dublin, CA, USA). An objective examination of the ONH was performed with confocal laser ophthalmoscopy using the Heidelberg retina tomograph (HRT II, Heidelberg Engineering Inc, Heidelberg, Germany). The HRT parameters rim area and mean retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness, as well as the visual field indices mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were analyzed. Furthermore, CCT and anterior segment characteristics were measured with the Pentacam (Pentacam HR 3, Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) and the inner retinal layers with the OCT glaucoma module (Spectralis®, Heidelberg Engineering Inc., Heidelberg, Germany). Subsequently, biomechanical measurements were performed with the ORA and CST.

The ORA uses an infrared beam to monitor the corneal deformation caused by a rapid air pulse. The infrared beam is reflected by the cornea in different deformation states and registered by an optical sensor. From the differences in the acting pressures to achieve defined corneal deformation states, the device calculates the Corneal Hysteresis (CH) and the Corneal Resistance Factor (CRF) [2123]. In the present study, three consecutive measurements of each eye were obtained and the average (calculated by the ORA software) was used for further analysis.

During CST measurement a two-dimensional cross-section image of the cornea after application of an air pulse is created using a high-speed Scheimpflug camera to measure dynamic response of the cornea and the IOP. This process creates different dynamic corneal response (DCR) parameters describing corneal biomechanical properties [21, 24]. Measurements with the CST were taken once in every eye as previous reports had described reliable and good quality results even after a single measurement [25, 26]. Following DCR parameters were analyzed: the deformation amplitude (DA) ratio max 2 mm, that describes the ratio of the central deformation amplitude and mean peripheral deformation at ± 2mm from apex [27]; the integrated radius, that represent the sum of the concave condition (inverse radius) of the cornea between 1st and 2nd applanation [27]; and the stress-strain index (SSI), that describes elastic properties of the cornea minimizing the influencing factors corneal thickness and intra-ocular pressure [28].

Data were analyzed using the software SPSS (Version 27, IBM Statistics, New York, USA). To correct a possible influence on biomechanical readings caused by IOP, CCT and age [24, 2931], a group matching for these parameters was performed using the “case control matching” algorithm of the SPSS software. Matching criteria were age (tolerance of 5 years), IOP (tolerance of 2 mmHg), and pachymetry (tolerance of 8 μm). Normal distribution was visually assessed by Q-Q plots. Differences between HPG and NPG patients were compared using the linear mixed model considering the inter-eye correlation [32]. The association to indicators of disease severity (perimetry, HRT) was analyzed using a univariate regression analysis based on the generalized estimating equations and taking into account the correlation between both eyes. Due to multiple testing of five main outcome measures (CH, CRF, DA ratio max 2 mm, integrated radius, and SSI), a P-value of lower than 0.01 was considered as statistically significant.


Initially, 70 eyes of 42 treated HPG and 139 eyes of 95 treated NPG patients were included. Baseline data of all participants were compared and IOP showed significant group differences (HPG: 15.1 ± 4.7 mmHg, NPG: 13.4 ± 2.3 mmHg, P = 0.004). After group matching, 60 eyes of 38 HPG patients and 103 eyes of 60 NPG patients were included for further analyses. Baseline data of these participants are given in Table 1. According to the glaucoma staging system 2 by Brusini and Filacorda [33], in HPG and NPG a disease severity stage 3 (from 5 stages) was determined.

Table 1. Baseline data of high pressure (HPG) and normal pressure glaucoma (NPG) patients after group matching for intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness and age.

Regarding the IOP-lowering medication, Beta-blockers (HPG: n = 37 (62%); NPG: n = 61 (59%); P = 0.759), prostaglandin derivates (HPG: n = 49 (82%), NPG: n = 88 (85%); P = 0.526), carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (HPG: n = 34 (57%), NPG: n = 64 (62%); P = 0.492), alpha-2-selective adrenergic agonists (HPG: n = 27 (45%), NPG: n = 20 (19%); P = 0.001) and parasympathomimetics (HPG: n = 3 (5%), NPG: n = 14 (14%); P = 0.084) were used.

ORA measurement revealed a significantly higher CRF in HPG than in NPG patients (9.52 ± 2.28 mmHg vs. 8.22 ± 1.68, P < 0.001, Table 2). Also, dynamic corneal response parameters showed significant group differences (Table 2). Inter alia, NPG patients showed a higher integrated radius (8.97 ± 0.96 vs. 8.23 ± 1.3, P < 0.001) in comparison to HPG. The SSI (1.37 ± 0.28 vs. 1.17 ± 0.22, P < 0.001) was increased in HPG compared to NPG.

Table 2. Comparison of biomechanical parameters in high pressure (HPG) and normal pressure glaucoma (NPG) patients after group matching.

Regression analysis revealed significant associations between biomechanical parameters and indicators of disease severity. In HPG, SSI correlated significant to RNFL thickness (Table 3). In NPG, the associations were more pronounced and significant dependencies between biomechanical readings and rim area, MD, as well as PSD were detectable. The results are shown in Table 4.

Table 3. Regression analysis of the association between corneal biomechanical parameters and functional (visual field) and structural (HRT) indices of glaucoma severity in high pressure glaucoma (HPG) patients using generalized estimating equations.

Table 4. Regression analysis of the association between corneal biomechanical parameters and functional (visual field) and structural (HRT) indices of glaucoma severity in normal pressure glaucoma (NPG) patients using generalized estimating equations.


Earlier studies reported significant differences in CCT, ORA and CST results between POAG patients and healthy subjects [11, 3437], but in the current study, we focused on differences between POAG diagnosed as HPG or NPG. Due to the applied matching algorithm, we were able to compare similar patient groups in a sufficient number of cases and with less possible falsifying influences [24, 2931].

In HPG, the SSI was increased in comparison to NPG, indicating a higher corneal stiffness [28, 38]. Furthermore, in the case of a higher stiffness, a reduction in deformation amplitude ratio max (which was not statistical significant) and integrated radius is expected [39], which was detectable in HPG patients. Although these changes might be caused by a higher IOP [30], the implemented group matching according to IOP, CCT and age, reduces this influence. SSI represents the overall stress-strain behavior of the corneal tissue [28], which was reduced in NPG patients. Similarly, in keratoconus a reduction in corneal stiffness is well known, and a decrease of SSI in moderate keratoconus in comparison to healthy subjects was detected previously [38]. In agreement, Wu et al. [40] and Xu et al. [41] found more deformable corneas in NPG than in HPG and healthy subjects. Furthermore, Vinciguerra and co-workers reported different biomechanics in NPG and HPG. Also shown in this work, corneas of NPG patients had a lower stiffness with a reduction in the stiffness parameter at 1st applanation (SPA1) [36]. The parameter SPA1 differs from the SSI due to it is defined as the resultant pressure during inward movement divided by the corneal displacement from undeformed state to applanation A1. Therefore, SPA1 predominantly represents the elastic component of the corneal resistance to deformation [24]. However, a relationship to corneal thickness and IOP was found in healthy eyes [42]. Simultaneously, ORA measurements revealed a higher CRF in HPG than in NPG, while CH remained not significantly different between the groups. The CH shows corneal viscous damping capacity, whereas the CRF indicates the global resistance against deformation [23, 43]. Therefore, it could be assumed that mainly elastic corneal properties are higher in HPG than in NPG.

These biomechanical differences between HPG and NPG lead to the hypothesis of two disease entities with potentially divergent underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. In agreement, some earlier studies reported differences in the location and the extent of visual field defects [4447], and the structural damage of the ONH [48] between HPG and NPG patients. On the other hand, some authors showed identical ONH changes [4951]. Furthermore, genetic differences can be presumed [52, 53], and the peripapillary vessel density differs between HPG and NPG [54]. Lešták et al. reported discrepancies in the results of pattern electroretinogram, pattern visual evoked potentials as well as functional magnetic resonance imaging between HPG and NTG [55]. On this basis, they assumed changes at different points of the visual pathway in both entities [55].

According to the mechanical glaucoma theory, a reduced compliance at the ONH and the LC might be causative. A higher tissue stiffness could increase the susceptibility to IOP fluctuations [14, 18] leading to microcirculatory disturbance, lack of neurotrophic factors due to disorders of axonal transport or direct damage to retinal nerve fibers at the ONH [1, 2]. Conversely, in NPG other mechanisms may be effective, which have also been discussed in the past. Inter alia, these could include retinal glial cell activation, oxidative stress, low cerebrospinal fluid pressure in the subarachnoidal space of the ONH, tissue remodeling with increase in matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), and loss of neuronal tissue [5, 52, 56].

Earlier studies reported a stiffer TM, LC and peripapillary sclerae in glaucoma [1417]. The stiffening and increased outflow resistance of the TM may be caused by a growth in extracellular matrix (ECM) with thickening of elastic fibers introduced by a higher resistance against proteolytic degradation and a reduced tissue turnover [14]. Furthermore, according to Albon et al. and Liu et al., age-induced alterations in collagenous and non-collagenous components of ECM of the LC occur, which may further reduce compliance at the ONH [14, 18]. Also, sclera stiffening in POAG was attributed to ECM changes with alterations in collagen fiber alignment and density as well as accumulation of nonenzymatic crosslinking [14]. Another point may be an enhanced accumulation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) in the ECM of glaucomatous eyes. AGE-induced crosslinking of collagen fibrils was correlated to reduced susceptibility to proteolytic and chemical degradation with a following loss of flexibility [14].

In the context of ECM changes, results by Gramer et al. have to be mentioned [46]. In case of equivalent visual field defects, they found a smaller rim area in NPG than in HPG patients. Assuming that equal visual field defects are associated with the same extent of axonal loss, the authors presumed a stronger decrease of not-neuronal rim tissue in NPG than in HPG. According to Gramer et al., the loss of non-neuronal tissue may be an explanation for the lower IOP tolerance of the ONH in NPG [46]. Thereby, a connective tissue atrophy could be the cause or the consequence of a chronic reduction in ONH perfusion [46, 47]. As previously mentioned, corneal biomechanics may serve as an indicator for structural ONH integrity [19]. However, a conclusion from corneal biomechanical changes to the tissue alterations on a microstructural level seems not to be possible.

A further indication that ECM changes are not limited to TM, LC, ONH and peripapillary sclera [1417, 46], but further involve the corneal tissue may be the measurement of CCT in POAG. A thinner CCT is a known risk factor for glaucoma progression [3, 57], and it was associated with a smaller rim area and a larger cup volume in POAG [58, 59]. Thinner CCT is found more often in patients with NPG [60]. Furthermore, a more pronounced decrease in CH and CRF in more advanced NPG eyes was reported [34]. On the one hand, CCT reduction is associated with a decreased corneal stiffness [24, 29, 30], but on the other hand, a CCT matching was applied in the current study. Therefore, a more deformable cornea in NPG than in HPG may indicate that the earlier discussed tissue remodeling associated with activation of MMPs may not only take place at the ONH level in NPG [5, 61].

MMPs are a group of proteolytic enzymes degrading ECM components, which are present in all parts of the eye [62]. An imbalance of MMP activity and its inhibitors may be involved in glaucomatous IOP increase [62]. A human cell culture study showed a rise in MT1-MMP expression and a decrease in tissue inhibitor of MMP 2 (TIMP-2) levels caused by IOP increase and stretching of TM cells [63]. In agreement, MMP-9 knockout mice developed ocular hypertension [64]. Other studies demonstrate the role of corneal MMPs, e.g. the involvement of MMP-2 or -9 in corneal ulceration in microbial keratitis [65], corneal scarring [66] and corneal wound healing [67]. Therefore, the higher corneal stiffness reduction in NPG than in HPG might be caused by higher MMP activity leading to enhanced ECM turnover. Moreover, earlier discussed MMP activity at the ONH level [68, 69] could be the cause of a stronger reduction in non-neuronal ONH tissue in NPG as assumed by Gramer et al. [46]. According to Weinreb et al., CCT reduction could be a surrogate marker for MMP activity in glaucoma [62]. The same could be true for corneal biomechanics and differences in the pattern of MMP activity might be a reason for biomechanical differences in HPG and NPG.

This hypothesis is reinforced by the measured associations between indicators of disease severity and biomechanical parameters, which were more pronounced in NPG than in HPG patients. In NPG, ORA as well as CST results correlated to HRT and perimetry indices. For instance, CH and CRF are decreased with smaller rim area. Similarly, an advanced visual field defect (MD reduction, PSD increase) resulted in a higher deformation amplitude ratio in NPG. In both groups, morphological and functional parameters were associated to the parameter SSI. In HPG, RNFL thickness correlated positively to SSI. In NPG, rim area was positively and PSD was negatively related to SSI. These facts lead to the conclusion that a reduced corneal deformation measured by dynamic methods is associated to a more advanced glaucomatous damage in HPG and NPG patients. Therefore, a lower corneal stiffness may be a risk factor or an indicator for a severe disease progression. In accordance, using CST measurements Li et al. found a more deformable cornea in the worse eye of asymmetric NPG patients [12]. In the same manner, Jung et al. reported a quicker progression of perimetric defects in case of a higher deflection amplitude [70] indicating a reduced corneal stiffness [24, 25, 71]. And Park et al. showed lower CH values in more advanced glaucoma classified by HRT measurements [34]. Supporting the hypothesis of concordant changes of the whole globe, Quigley and Cone considered the stiffening of the sclera to be a protective response to IOP effects in glaucoma [72]. In another investigation using confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy by Lesk et al., LC movement was detected after IOP reduction. Thereby, individuals with lower corneal thickness showed a higher extent of LC movement and a smaller improvement of neuroretinal rim blood flow after IOP reduction than subjects with higher CCT [73]. Therefore, under the assumption of an equal composition of the ECM of the anterior and posterior ocular tissues, eyes with more deformable corneas may be more susceptible to IOP induced damage of the LC and the peripapillary sclera [12, 36, 57, 74]. This association could explain the connection between a reduced corneal stiffness and advanced glaucomatous damage. However, this is contradicted by other reports, which found higher stiffness of the optic nerve and the peripapillary structures in POAG [75]. Furthermore, Qassim et al. showed that higher SPA1 was associated with a faster rate of RNFL and ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thinning as well as a greater risk of visual field progression in glaucoma suspects [76].

It may be argued that the credibility of the results is reduced by a potential influence of topic anti-glaucomatous medication. Especially prostaglandins might influence ocular biomechanics [77, 78]. However, no significant difference in treatment regime existed between the study groups. Well known adverse effects of prostaglandins are enophthalmos and deepening of the upper lid sulcus caused by periorbital fat atrophy. The resultant reduction in size and increased density of adipocytes [79] may contribute to reduced orbital compliance in glaucoma. The parameter whole eye movement (WEM) indicates the slow linear motion of the whole eye in the anterior-posterior direction during the applanation process [80]. It can serve as an indicator for retrobulbar tissue changes. However, WEM did not differ between NPG and HPG (data not shown), which contradicts a significant difference in prostaglandin effect between the groups.

Besides topical medication, a further limitation of the current study is the observational, cross-sectional design. Therefore, a longitudinal evaluation of corneal biomechanical risk factors is not possible. Moreover, the necessary group matching reduced the number of participants, and all patients were of Caucasian ethnicity. In consequence, results must be interpreted with caution. The strength of this study lies in the comparison of two very similar cohorts of treated HPG and NPG patients examined under the same conditions.

In conclusion, significant differences in corneal biomechanics were detectable between HPG and NPG patients with generally stiffer corneal properties in HPG. In both groups, a lower corneal stiffness was associated with advanced glaucomatous damage. Therefore, a more deformable cornea may be a risk factor for a severe disease progression in POAG. The measurable differences in corneal biomechanical properties between HPG and NPG lead to the assumption of different underlying pathophysiological mechanisms in both entities.


  1. 1. Bowling B, Kanski JJ. Kanski’s clinical ophthalmology: a systematic approach. 8. ed. s.l.: Elsevier; 2016. 917 S. (Expert consult).
  2. 2. Chang EE, Goldberg JL. Glaucoma 2.0: neuroprotection, neuroregeneration, neuroenhancement. Ophthalmology. Mai 2012;119(5):979–86. pmid:22349567
  3. 3. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Dong L, Yang Z, u. a. Predictors of long-term progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology. November 2007;114(11):1965–72.
  4. 4. Bouhenni R A., Dunmire J, Sewell A, Edward DP. Animal Models of Glaucoma. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2012;2012:1–11.
  5. 5. Flammer J, Mozaffarieh M. What Is the Present Pathogenetic Concept of Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy? Surv Ophthalmol. November 2007;52(6):S162–73. pmid:17998042
  6. 6. Grieshaber MC, Mozaffarieh M, Flammer J. What is the link between vascular dysregulation and glaucoma? Surv Ophthalmol. November 2007;52 Suppl 2:S144–154. pmid:17998040
  7. 7. Ramm L, Jentsch S, Peters S, Sauer L, Augsten R, Hammer M. Dependence of diameters and oxygen saturation of retinal vessels on visual field damage and age in primary open-angle glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). Mai 2016;94(3):276–81. pmid:25876673
  8. 8. Pillunat KR, Ventzke S, Spoerl E, Furashova O, Stodtmeister R, Pillunat LE. Central retinal venous pulsation pressure in different stages of primary open-angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. Oktober 2014;98(10):1374–8. pmid:24820045
  9. 9. Burgoyne CF, Downs JC, Bellezza AJ, Suh JKF, Hart RT. The optic nerve head as a biomechanical structure: a new paradigm for understanding the role of IOP-related stress and strain in the pathophysiology of glaucomatous optic nerve head damage. Prog Retin Eye Res. Januar 2005;24(1):39–73. pmid:15555526
  10. 10. Crawford Downs J, Roberts MD, Sigal IA. Glaucomatous cupping of the lamina cribrosa: a review of the evidence for active progressive remodeling as a mechanism. Exp Eye Res. August 2011;93(2):133–40. pmid:20708001
  11. 11. Tian L, Wang D, Wu Y, Meng X, Chen B, Ge M, u. a. Corneal biomechanical characteristics measured by the CorVis Scheimpflug technology in eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma and normal eyes. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). August 2016;94(5):e317–324. pmid:25639340
  12. 12. Li BB, Cai Y, Pan YZ, Li M, Qiao RH, Fang Y, u. a. Corneal Biomechanical Parameters and Asymmetric Visual Field Damage in Patients with Untreated Normal Tension Glaucoma. Chin Med J (Engl). 5. Februar 2017;130(3):334–9.
  13. 13. Grise-Dulac A, Saad A, Abitbol O, Febbraro JL, Azan E, Moulin-Tyrode C, u. a. Assessment of corneal biomechanical properties in normal tension glaucoma and comparison with open-angle glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. J Glaucoma. September 2012;21(7):486–9.
  14. 14. Liu B, McNally S, Kilpatrick JI, Jarvis SP, O’Brien CJ. Aging and ocular tissue stiffness in glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol. Februar 2018;63(1):56–74. pmid:28666629
  15. 15. Coudrillier B, Tian J, Alexander S, Myers KM, Quigley HA, Nguyen TD. Biomechanics of the human posterior sclera: age- and glaucoma-related changes measured using inflation testing. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2. April 2012;53(4):1714–28. pmid:22395883
  16. 16. Boote C, Sigal IA, Grytz R, Hua Y, Nguyen TD, Girard MJA. Scleral structure and biomechanics. Prog Retin Eye Res. Januar 2020;74:100773. pmid:31412277
  17. 17. Quigley HA, Brown A, Dorman-Pease ME. Alterations in elastin of the optic nerve head in human and experimental glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. September 1991;75(9):552–7. pmid:1911659
  18. 18. Albon J, Karwatowski WS, Easty DL, Sims TJ, Duance VC. Age related changes in the non-collagenous components of the extracellular matrix of the human lamina cribrosa. Br J Ophthalmol. März 2000;84(3):311–7. pmid:10684844
  19. 19. Kotecha A. What biomechanical properties of the cornea are relevant for the clinician? Surv Ophthalmol. November 2007;52 Suppl 2:S109–114. pmid:17998034
  20. 20. Pillunat KR, Herber R, Spoerl E, Erb C, Pillunat LE. A new biomechanical glaucoma factor to discriminate normal eyes from normal pressure glaucoma eyes. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). November 2019;97(7):e962–7. pmid:31016882
  21. 21. Ambrósio R, Correia FF, Lopes B, Salomão MQ, Luz A, Dawson DG, u. a. Corneal Biomechanics in Ectatic Diseases: Refractive Surgery Implications. Open Ophthalmol J. 2017;11:176–93.
  22. 22. Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. Januar 2005;31(1):156–62. pmid:15721708
  23. 23. Spörl E, Terai N, Haustein M, Böhm AG, Raiskup-Wolf F, Pillunat LE. [Biomechanical condition of the cornea as a new indicator for pathological and structural changes]. Ophthalmol Z Dtsch Ophthalmol Ges. Juni 2009;106(6):512–20.
  24. 24. Roberts CJ, Mahmoud AM, Bons JP, Hossain A, Elsheikh A, Vinciguerra R, u. a. Introduction of Two Novel Stiffness Parameters and Interpretation of Air Puff-Induced Biomechanical Deformation Parameters With a Dynamic Scheimpflug Analyzer. J Refract Surg Thorofare NJ 1995. 1. April 2017;33(4):266–73.
  25. 25. Ali NQ, Patel DV, McGhee CNJ. Biomechanical responses of healthy and keratoconic corneas measured using a noncontact scheimpflug-based tonometer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 15. Mai 2014;55(6):3651–9. pmid:24833745
  26. 26. Lopes BT, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A, Vinciguerra R, Vinciguerra P, Reisdorf S, u. a. Repeatability and Reproducibility of Intraocular Pressure and Dynamic Corneal Response Parameters Assessed by the Corvis ST. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:8515742.
  27. 27. Vinciguerra R, Ambrósio R, Elsheikh A, Roberts CJ, Lopes B, Morenghi E, u. a. Detection of Keratoconus With a New Biomechanical Index. J Refract Surg Thorofare NJ 1995. 1. Dezember 2016;32(12):803–10.
  28. 28. Eliasy A, Chen KJ, Vinciguerra R, Lopes BT, Abass A, Vinciguerra P, u. a. Determination of Corneal Biomechanical Behavior in-vivo for Healthy Eyes Using CorVis ST Tonometry: Stress-Strain Index. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:105. pmid:31157217
  29. 29. Huseynova T, Waring 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. April 2014;157(4):885–93. pmid:24388837
  30. 30. Vinciguerra R, Elsheikh A, Roberts CJ, Ambrósio R, Kang DSY, Lopes BT, u. a. Influence of Pachymetry and Intraocular Pressure on Dynamic Corneal Response Parameters in Healthy Patients. J Refract Surg Thorofare NJ 1995. 1. August 2016;32(8):550–61.
  31. 31. Scheler A, Spoerl E, Boehm AG. Effect of diabetes mellitus on corneal biomechanics and measurement of intraocular pressure. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). September 2012;90(6):e447–451. pmid:22691299
  32. 32. Herber R, Kaiser A, Grählert X, Range U, Raiskup F, Pillunat LE, u. a. [Statistical analysis of correlated measurement data in ophthalmology: Tutorial for the application of the linear mixed model in SPSS and R using corneal biomechanical parameters]. Ophthalmol Z Dtsch Ophthalmol Ges. Januar 2020;117(1):27–35.
  33. 33. Brusini P, Filacorda S. Enhanced Glaucoma Staging System (GSS 2) for classifying functional damage in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. Februar 2006;15(1):40–6. pmid:16378017
  34. 34. Park K, Shin J, Lee J. Relationship between corneal biomechanical properties and structural biomarkers in patients with normal-tension glaucoma: a retrospective study. BMC Ophthalmol. 15. Januar 2018;18(1):7. pmid:29334923
  35. 35. Susanna CN, Diniz-Filho A, Daga FB, Susanna BN, Zhu F, Ogata NG, u. a. A Prospective Longitudinal Study to Investigate Corneal Hysteresis as a Risk Factor for Predicting Development of Glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. März 2018;187:148–52.
  36. 36. Vinciguerra R, Rehman S, Vallabh NA, Batterbury M, Czanner G, Choudhary A, u. a. Corneal biomechanics and biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure in primary open-angle glaucoma, ocular hypertension and controls. Br J Ophthalmol. Januar 2020;104(1):121–6.
  37. 37. Pillunat KR, Hermann C, Spoerl E, Pillunat LE. Analyzing biomechanical parameters of the cornea with glaucoma severity in open-angle glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol. Juli 2016;254(7):1345–51. pmid:27118038
  38. 38. Herber R, Hasanli A, Lenk J, Vinciguerra R, Terai N, Pillunat LE, u. a. Evaluation of Corneal Biomechanical Indices in Distinguishing Between Normal, Very Asymmetric, and Bilateral Keratoconic Eyes. J Refract Surg Thorofare NJ 1995. Juni 2022;38(6):364–72.
  39. 39. Chan TCY, Biswas S, Yu M, Jhanji V. Comparison of corneal measurements in keratoconus using swept-source optical coherence tomography and combined Placido-Scheimpflug imaging. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). September 2017;95(6):e486–94. pmid:27805316
  40. 40. Wu N, Chen Y, Sun X. Association Between Ocular Biomechanics Measured With Corvis ST and Glaucoma Severity in Patients With Untreated Primary Open Angle Glaucoma. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 1. Juni 2022;11(6):10. pmid:35679036
  41. 41. Xu Y, Ye Y, Chen Z, Xu J, Yang Y, Fan Y, u. a. Corneal Stiffness and Modulus of Normal-Tension Glaucoma in Chinese: Normal-tension glaucoma, stiffer or softer? Am J Ophthalmol. 25. Juni 2022;S0002–9394(22)00254-9.
  42. 42. Herber R, Ramm L, Spoerl E, Raiskup F, Pillunat LE, Terai N. Assessment of corneal biomechanical parameters in healthy and keratoconic eyes using dynamic bidirectional applanation device and dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. Juni 2019;45(6):778–88. pmid:30902432
  43. 43. Goldich Y, Barkana Y, Gerber Y, Rasko A, Morad Y, Harstein M, u. a. Effect of diabetes mellitus on biomechanical parameters of the cornea. J Cataract Refract Surg. April 2009;35(4):715–9.
  44. 44. Thonginnetra O, Greenstein VC, Chu D, Liebmann JM, Ritch R, Hood DC. Normal versus high tension glaucoma: a comparison of functional and structural defects. J Glaucoma. März 2010;19(3):151–7. pmid:19223786
  45. 45. Häntzschel J, Terai N, Sorgenfrei F, Haustein M, Pillunat K, Pillunat LE. Morphological and functional differences between normal-tension and high-tension glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). August 2013;91(5):e386–391. pmid:23387808
  46. 46. Gramer E, Althaus G, Leydhecker W. [Site and depth of glaucomatous visual field defects in relation to the size of the neuroretinal edge zone of the optic disk in glaucoma without hypertension, simple glaucoma, pigmentary glaucoma. A clinical study with the Octopus perimeter 201 and the optic nerve head analyzer]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. September 1986;189(3):190–8.
  47. 47. Park IK, Kim KW, Moon NJ, Shin JH, Chun YS. Comparison of Superior and Inferior Visual Field Asymmetry Between Normal-tension and High-tension Glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 1. August 2021;30(8):648–55. pmid:34008532
  48. 48. Eid TE, Spaeth GL, Moster MR, Augsburger JJ. Quantitative differences between the optic nerve head and peripapillary retina in low-tension and high-tension primary open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. Dezember 1997;124(6):805–13. pmid:9402827
  49. 49. Iester M, Mikelberg FS. Optic nerve head morphologic characteristics in high-tension and normal-tension glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol Chic Ill 1960. August 1999;117(8):1010–3. pmid:10448742
  50. 50. Nakatsue T, Shirakashi M, Yaoeda K, Funaki S, Funaki H, Fukushima A, u. a. Optic disc topography as measured by confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy and visual field loss in Japanese patients with primary open-angle or normal-tension glaucoma. J Glaucoma. August 2004;13(4):291–8.
  51. 51. Häntzschel J, Terai N, Furashova O, Pillunat K, Pillunat LE. Comparison of normal- and high-tension glaucoma: nerve fiber layer and optic nerve head damage. Ophthalmol J Int Ophtalmol Int J Ophthalmol Z Augenheilkd. 2014;231(3):160–5. pmid:24334967
  52. 52. Weinreb RN, Aung T, Medeiros FA. The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review. JAMA. 14. Mai 2014;311(18):1901–11. pmid:24825645
  53. 53. Fraenkl SA, Golubnitschaja O, Yeghiazaryan K, Orgül S, Flammer J. Differences in gene expression in lymphocytes of patients with high-tension, PEX, and normal-tension glaucoma and in healthy subjects. Eur J Ophthalmol. Dezember 2013;23(6):841–9. pmid:23722265
  54. 54. Park JH, Yoo C, Kim YY. Peripapillary Vessel Density in Young Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma: Comparison between High-Tension and Normal-Tension Glaucoma. Sci Rep. 16. Dezember 2019;9(1):19160. pmid:31844171
  55. 55. Lešták J, Pitrová Š, Nutterová E, Bartošová L. Normal tension vs high tension glaucoma: an—overview. Ceska Slov Oftalmol Cas Ceske Oftalmol Spolecnosti Slov Oftalmol Spolecnosti. 2019;75(2):55–60.
  56. 56. Grieshaber MC, Orgul S, Schoetzau A, Flammer J. Relationship between retinal glial cell activation in glaucoma and vascular dysregulation. J Glaucoma. März 2007;16(2):215–9. pmid:17473733
  57. 57. Sng CCA, Ang M, Barton K. Central corneal thickness in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. März 2017;28(2):120–6. pmid:27764022
  58. 58. Wu RY, Zheng YF, Wong TY, Cheung CYL, Loon SC, Chauhan BC, u. a. Relationship of central corneal thickness with optic disc parameters: the Singapore Malay Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 10. März 2011;52(3):1320–4.
  59. 59. Abe H, Shirakashi M, Tsutsumi T, Araie M, Tomidokoro A, Iwase A, u. a. Laser scanning tomography of optic discs of the normal Japanese population in a population-based setting. Ophthalmology. Februar 2009;116(2):223–30.
  60. 60. Belovay GW, Goldberg I. The thick and thin of the central corneal thickness in glaucoma. Eye Lond Engl. Mai 2018;32(5):915–23. pmid:29445115
  61. 61. Mozaffarieh M, Flammer J. New insights in the pathogenesis and treatment of normal tension glaucoma. Curr Opin Pharmacol. Februar 2013;13(1):43–9. pmid:23092679
  62. 62. Weinreb RN, Robinson MR, Dibas M, Stamer WD. Matrix Metalloproteinases and Glaucoma Treatment. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther Off J Assoc Ocul Pharmacol Ther. Mai 2020;36(4):208–28.
  63. 63. Bradley JM, Kelley MJ, Zhu X, Anderssohn AM, Alexander JP, Acott TS. Effects of mechanical stretching on trabecular matrix metalloproteinases. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. Juni 2001;42(7):1505–13. pmid:11381054
  64. 64. De Groef L, Andries L, Siwakoti A, Geeraerts E, Bollaerts I, Noterdaeme L, u. a. Aberrant Collagen Composition of the Trabecular Meshwork Results in Reduced Aqueous Humor Drainage and Elevated IOP in MMP-9 Null Mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1. November 2016;57(14):5984–95.
  65. 65. Wong Y, Sethu C, Louafi F, Hossain P. Lipopolysaccharide regulation of toll-like receptor-4 and matrix metalloprotease-9 in human primary corneal fibroblasts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 25. April 2011;52(5):2796–803. pmid:21220558
  66. 66. Holopainen JM, Serra HM, Sánchez MC, Sorsa T, Zalentein WN, Barcelona PF, u. a. Altered expression of matrix metalloproteinases and their tissue inhibitors as possible contributors to corneal droplet formation in climatic droplet keratopathy. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). September 2011;89(6):569–74.
  67. 67. Zhou Q, Yang L, Qu M, Wang Y, Chen P, Wang Y, u. a. Role of senescent fibroblasts on alkali-induced corneal neovascularization. J Cell Physiol. März 2012;227(3):1148–56.
  68. 68. Golubnitschaja O, Flammer J. What are the biomarkers for glaucoma? Surv Ophthalmol. November 2007;52 Suppl 2:S155–161. pmid:17998041
  69. 69. Flammer J, Mozaffarieh M. What is the present pathogenetic concept of glaucomatous optic neuropathy? Surv Ophthalmol. November 2007;52 Suppl 2:S162–173. pmid:17998042
  70. 70. Jung Y, Chun H, Moon JI. Corneal deflection amplitude and visual field progression in primary open-angle glaucoma. PloS One. 2019;14(8):e0220655. pmid:31404083
  71. 71. Vinciguerra R, Romano V, Arbabi EM, Brunner M, Willoughby CE, Batterbury M, u. a. In Vivo Early Corneal Biomechanical Changes After Corneal Cross-linking in Patients With Progressive Keratoconus. J Refract Surg Thorofare NJ 1995. 1. Dezember 2017;33(12):840–6.
  72. 72. Quigley HA, Cone FE. Development of diagnostic and treatment strategies for glaucoma through understanding and modification of scleral and lamina cribrosa connective tissue. Cell Tissue Res. August 2013;353(2):231–44. pmid:23535950
  73. 73. Lesk MR, Hafez AS, Descovich D. Relationship between central corneal thickness and changes of optic nerve head topography and blood flow after intraocular pressure reduction in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol Chic Ill 1960. November 2006;124(11):1568–72. pmid:17102003
  74. 74. Medeiros FA, Meira-Freitas D, Lisboa R, Kuang TM, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN. Corneal hysteresis as a risk factor for glaucoma progression: a prospective longitudinal study. Ophthalmology. August 2013;120(8):1533–40. pmid:23642371
  75. 75. Dikici AS, Mihmanli I, Kilic F, Ozkok A, Kuyumcu G, Sultan P, u. a. In Vivo Evaluation of the Biomechanical Properties of Optic Nerve and Peripapillary Structures by Ultrasonic Shear Wave Elastography in Glaucoma. Iran J Radiol Q J Publ Iran Radiol Soc. April 2016;13(2):e36849. pmid:27703662
  76. 76. Qassim A, Mullany S, Abedi F, Marshall H, Hassall MM, Kolovos A, u. a. Corneal Stiffness Parameters Are Predictive of Structural and Functional Progression in Glaucoma Suspect Eyes. Ophthalmology. Juli 2021;128(7):993–1004.
  77. 77. Tsikripis P, Papaconstantinou D, Koutsandrea C, Apostolopoulos M, Georgalas I. The effect of prostaglandin analogs on the biomechanical properties and central thickness of the cornea of patients with open-angle glaucoma: a 3-year study on 108 eyes. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2013;7:1149–56. pmid:24115838
  78. 78. Wu N, Chen Y, Yang Y, Sun X. The changes of corneal biomechanical properties with long-term treatment of prostaglandin analogue measured by Corvis ST. BMC Ophthalmol. 20. Oktober 2020;20(1):422. pmid:33081750
  79. 79. Eftekhari K, Vagefi MR, Lee V, Hui JZ, Zhu M, Dine K, u. a. In Vivo Effects of Retrobulbar Bimatoprost Injection on Orbital Fat. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. Juni 2018;34(3):201–4.
  80. 80. Leszczynska A, Moehler K, Spoerl E, Ramm L, Herber R, Pillunat LE, u. a. Measurement of Orbital Biomechanical Properties in Patients with Thyroid Orbitopathy Using the Dynamic Scheimpflug Analyzer (Corvis ST). Curr Eye Res. März 2018;43(3):289–92.