
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39289420
72054
10.1038/s41598-024-72054-2
Article
Age-related analysis of corneal biomechanical parameters in healthy Chinese individuals
Guo Yihan 1
Guo Li-Li 2
Yang Weiqiang 3
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7216-5352
Tian Lei tianlei0131@163.com

1
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-8241
Jie Ying jie_yingcn@aliyun.com

1
1 grid.24696.3f 0000 0004 0369 153X Beijing Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Key Laboratory, Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100730 China
2 https://ror.org/00q3p9p08 grid.440226.6 The First People’s Hospital of Xuzhou, Xuzhou, China
3 grid.24696.3f 0000 0004 0369 153X Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
17 9 2024
17 9 2024
2024
14 2171321 3 2024
3 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
To report the correlation between corneal biomechanical parameters and age in healthy Chinese individuals. This cross-sectional study was conducted on 864 eyes of 543 healthy participants. A comprehensive ophthalmic examination and corneal biomechanics examination using Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (Corvis ST) were conducted. Based on age, all participants were further divided into five age groups (n) as follows: group A, 11–20 years (105); group B, 21–30 years (112); group C, 31–40 years (113); group D, 41–50 years (100); and group E, > 50 years (113). Using Corvis ST, we examined 35 corneal biomechanical parameters and compared them across the different age groups. Spearman’s correlation coefficients and stepwise multivariate linear regression models were used to investigate whether the corneal biomechanical parameters were related to demographic and ocular characteristics. A correlation analysis between the left and right eyes revealed that 13 parameters were significantly associated with eye differences. Among the 35 corneal biomechanical parameters, 28 exhibited significant differences across the age groups, with stiffness parameter at applanation 1(SPA1) showing an upward trend after the age of 30 and stress–strain index (SSI) demonstrates a statistically significant upward trend when comparing the five age groups in the study. Additionally, Spearman’s correlation analysis and stepwise multivariate linear regression analysis revealed that 11 corneal biomechanical parameters were positively correlated with age and 10 were negatively correlated with age. Corvis biomechanical index (CBI) was significantly negatively correlated with intraocular pressure (IOP) and central corneal thickness (CCT), SSI was significantly positively correlated with age and IOP, and SPA1 were positively correlated with IOP and CCT. In conclusion, most corneal biomechanical parameters showed a significant correlation with age, with corneal stiffness progressively increasing alongside advancing age, IOP, or CCT.

Keywords

Corneal biomechanics
Corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology
Age
Chinese
Subject terms

Diseases
Medical research
The Open Research Fund from Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-Based Precision MedicineBHTR-KFJJ-202001 Tian Lei http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001809 National Natural Science Foundation of China 82171101 Tian Lei Beijing Nova ProgramZ181100006218099 Tian Lei The Beijing Natural Science Foundation7242019 Tian Lei The Capital Health Research and Development of Special2024-2-1082 Tian Lei issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Biomechanics is the study of the mechanical laws governing the structural components of organisms or objects1. The biomechanical properties of the cornea reflect the corneal deformation that occurs under external forces, which is a deciding factor of corneal shape2.

The measurement of corneal biomechanics is of great importance for the clinical diagnosis of many diseases, such as keratoconus3–7, Fuchs Dystrophy7,8, and diabetes2. It also plays an essential role in the preoperative evaluation of cataracts9,10, glaucoma, refractive surgery6,7, and other ophthalmic operations.

Because corneal biomechanics plays a vital role in the clinic, its study has always been a hot subject in ophthalmology. In fact, since the late 1970s, corneal biomechanics has attracted the attention of many researchers. Furthermore, the detection instruments used to assess corneal biomechanics are constantly improving with the advancement of technology. In recent years, various instruments have been developed for measuring corneal biomechanics in vivo, such as the ocular response analyzer (ORA, Reichert ophthalmic instrument) and the Corvis ST (Oculus Optikgera¨te GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) instrument. Corvis ST is a noncontact metering system with an ultra-high-speed Scheimpflug camera that provides comprehensive corneal biomechanical parameters and biomechanically corrected IOP, overcoming ORA's limitations by offering detailed dynamic corneal deformation information7,11. In addition, to assess the effect of biomechanical parameters on the results obtained, the software version was updated several times and new parameters were added, including the SSI, CBI, and SPA1.

Corneal biomechanical parameters are good predictors of early corneal dilation5. Therefore, a timely and correct understanding of the changes in corneal biodynamic parameters is essential for evaluating diseases and monitoring surgical outcomes. Recently, several studies have found a significant association between age and various corneal biomechanical parameters12–15. Specifically, in the Indian population, significant differences in 19 corneal biomechanical parameters were found across different age groups16. In Caucasians, age was significantly negatively correlated with corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF), and significantly positively correlated with Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg) and corneal compensated IOP (IOPcc)17. Therefore, This highlights the importance of gaining biomechanical knowledge across different age groups to improve the decision-making process for individual patients. What’s more, Chua showed that CH was lower in Chinese than in Indians and that CH level was correlated significantly with genetic ancestry in Southeast Asian populations18. Vinciguerra et al. observed that three dynamic corneal response (DCR) parameters (SPA1, Ambrosio’s relational thickness horizontal (Arth) and SSI) measured by Corvis ST, were significantly different between Chinese and Caucasian healthy subjects19. These findings suggest that corneal biomechanics vary among different ethnic populations, and these differences may play a crucial role in disease diagnosis. However, few large-scale studies have been performed in the Chinese population on the correlation between age and the comprehensive corneal biomechanical parameters provided by Corvis ST. Additionally, few studies have simultaneously included new parameters such as SSI, CBI, and SPA1.Therefore, this study aims to explore the distribution of corneal biomechanical parameters among different age groups in healthy Chinese populations and to study their relationship with various demographic and ocular characteristics.

Methods

Subject recruitment

This cross-sectional study enrolled 864 eyes of 543 normal Chinese participants at the Beijing Tongren Hospital, Beijing, China, from August 2017 to January 2020. Although we initially recruited 543 healthy participants with the aim to examine both eyes of each participant, due to incomplete examination data for some participants, the final analysis included data from only 864 eyes.

The corneal biomechanics parameters of visually normal participants measured using Corvis ST were analyzed, and almost all participants (age range, 11–84 years) were stratified into five separate age groups, each spanning a decade (11–20, 21–30, 31–40, 41–50, and > 50 years). Participants who had a history of corneal or ocular surgery, ocular pathology, systemic diseases affecting the eye, or long-term use of topical medications were excluded. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee Office of Beijing Tongren Hospital and was in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Sample size

The sample size for this study was calculated based on the expected correlation between corneal biomechanical parameters and age. We used Spearman correlation analysis with an anticipated medium effect size (correlation coefficient, r = 0.3), a significance level (α) of 0.05, and a statistical power (1 − β) of 0.80. This resulted in an estimated minimum sample size of 95 participants per age group. Considering potential data loss and to ensure adequate representation across five age groups, we enrolled a total of 543 healthy participants, accounting for 864 eyes.

Ocular examinations

All participants underwent a complete series of eye examinations, including uncorrected vision assessment, slit-lamp microscopy, fundus examination, corneal biomechanics assessment, corneal tomography (Pentacam), and intraocular pressure examination (Corvis ST). All ophthalmic measurements were performed by two trained ophthalmologists between 08:00 and 17:00 on the same day.

Corvis ST measurement

The cornea biomechanical characteristics were measured using Corvis ST (software version 1.6r2015), a new noncontact tonometer with optical thickness measurement function that can use a ultra-high-speed Scheimpflug camera to record the cornea’s reaction under a defined air pulse. The instrument can capture over 4300 images per second, with each image capturing 576 points20. Several studies have described the details and principles of the Corvis ST instrument21,22. Our study assessed several demographic and ocular variables (including age, IOP, and CCT), as well as 35 parameters pertaining to corneal biomechanical properties from the Corvis ST assessment, especially several new parameters: SPA1, CBI, and SSI. Based on the Scheimpflug image, IOP and corneal thickness can be measured precisely. Measurements that showed a quality index of “OK” were exclusively included in the analysis.

Table 1 shows the short names, full names, and explanations of the 35 Corvis ST parameters. The parameters included 28 DCR parameters and seven Vinciguerra screening parameters23–25. The DCR parameters were divided into four phases: at first applanation (A1), at second applanation (A2), at highest concavity (HC), and at maximum (Max). The Vinciguerra screening provides are seven helpful parameters to distinguish between normal and keratoconus corneas. Table 1 Description of the parameters measured using Corvis ST.

Short name	Full name	Explanation	
First applanation A1	
 A1T (ms)	A1 Time	Time from the start to the first applanation. It reflects the initial response to external forces	
 A1V (m/s)	A1 Velocity	Corneal velocity at the first applanation. A higher A1V typically indicates higher elasticity and lower viscosity of the cornea	
 A1DLA (mm):	A1 Deflection Amplitude	Deflection Amplitude at the first applanation. It indicates the extent of corneal deformation at the first applanation	
 A1DLL (mm):	A1 Deflection Length	Deflection length at the first applanation. Is valuable for assessing the overall deformation pattern and stress distribution of the cornea	
 A1DLAr (mm):	A1 Deflection Area	Deflection area at the first applanation. This parameter helps understand the deformation characteristics of the cornea in different directions	
 A1dArcL (mm):	A1 dArc Length	Delta arc length at the first applanation, providing detailed information on curvature changes of the cornea	
 A1DA (mm):	A1Deformation Amplitude	Deformation amplitude at the first applanation, helping assess the elasticity and deformation capacity of the cornea	
Second applanation A2	
 A2T (ms)	A2 Time	Time from the start to the second applanation. This parameter is crucial for assessing the recovery properties of the cornea	
 A2V (m/s)	A2 Velocity	Corneal velocity at the second applanation. A higher A2V typically indicates better recovery elasticity of the cornea	
 A2DLA (mm):	A2 Deflection Amplitude	Deflection Amplitude at the second applanation, helping understand the recovery elasticity of the cornea	
 A2DLL (mm):	A2 Deflection Length	Deflection length at second applanation.It is valuable for understanding the recovery deformation characteristics of the cornea	
 A2DLAr (mm):	A2 Deflection Area	Deflection area at the second applanation. This parameter helps understand the recovery characteristics of the cornea in different directions	
 A2dArcL (mm):	A2 dArc Length	Delta arc length at the second applanation, providing detailed information on the curvature changes during recovery	
 A2DA (mm):	A2 Deformation Amplitude	Deformation amplitude at the second applanation. It indicates the overall deformation amplitude of the cornea at the second applanation state	
Highest concavity	
 HCT (ms)	Highest concavity time	Time to reach the highest concavity of the cornea. A longer HCT may indicate a stiffer cornea, while a shorter HCT may suggest a softer cornea	
 HCDLA (mm):	Highest concavity Deflection Amplitude	Deflection Amplitude at the maximum deformation. It is crucial for assessing the elasticity and flexibility of the cornea under high stress	
 HCDLL (mm):	Highest concavity Deflection Length	Deflection length at the maximum deformation , helping understand the overall deformation pattern under high stress	
 HCDLAr (mm):	Highest concavity Deflection Area	Deflection area at the maximum deformation, indicates the radial deformation length of the cornea at maximum concavity	
 HCdArcL (mm):	Highest concavity dArc Length	Delta arc length at the maximum deformation, helping understand the deformation capacity under high stress	
 HCDA (mm)	Highest concavity Deformation Amplitude	Deformation amplitude at the maximum deformation, helping understand the deformation capacity under high stress	
 Radius (mm)	Radius	Radius of curvature at the highest concavity, providing important information on corneal structural integrity	
 PD (mm)	Peak distance	Distance of the two surrounding “knees” at highest concavity. It is an important parameter for understanding the distribution of deformation under high stress	
Maximum	
 MIR (mm−1):	Max Inverse Radius	The maximum value of curvature radius during deformation.It is an important indicator for assessing the elasticity and deformation characteristics of the cornea	
 WEMML (mm):	Whole Eye Movement Max Length	Max length of the whole eye movement, helping understand the distribution of deformation under high stress	
 WEMMT (ms):	Whole Eye Movement Max Time	Max time of the whole eye movement, providing detailed information on the deformation characteristics over time	
 dArcLM (mm):	dArc Length Max	Max delta arc length, providing detailed information on curvature changes under high stress	
 DLAML (mm):	Deflection Amplitude Max Length	Max Length at deflection amplitude.It is an important parameter for understanding the deformation pattern under high stress	
 DLAMT (ms):	Deflection Amplitude Max Time	Max time at deflection amplitude, helping understand the deformation characteristics over time	
Vinciguerra screening parameter	
 bIOP(mmHg)	Biomechanically-corrected Intraocular pressure	Obtained by finite element simulations that consider the influence of central cornea thickness, age, and DCR parameters	
 CBI	Corvis biomechanical index	Based on corneal thickness profile and deformation parameters. It is a composite index reflecting the biomechanical properties of the cornea, helping screen and assess corneal diseases	
 SPA1	Stiffness parameter at applanation 1	The adjustment pressure at A1 subtracts the biomechanistic IOP value (bIOP) and divides by the A1 deflection. It is a key indicator for assessing corneal hardness and elasticity	
 INR (mm−1):	Integrated radius	INR is the inverse radius of curvature, helping assess the curvature and elastic properties of the cornea	
 DARM [1 mm]	Deformation amplitude ratio (1 mm)	The maximum value of the deformation amplitude of the apical end 1 mm from the central cornea. It is used to screen for corneal abnormalities, helping understand deformation characteristics under different stress levels	
 DARM [2 mm]	deformation amplitude ratio [2 mm]	The maximum value of the deformation amplitude of the apical end 2 mm from the central cornea. It is used to screen for corneal abnormalities and is an important parameter for assessing corneal elasticity	
 SSI	Stress–strain index	Predictions based on corneal behavior and not affected by IOP and corneal geometry. It indicates the stiffness of the cornea at the second applanation state	

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, version 26.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to estimate the distribution normality of the measured variables and the results indicated that the corneal biomechanical parameters were normally distributed. Moreover, the mean and standard deviation (M ± SD) of the continuous variables and the frequencies and percentages of the categorical variables were used for descriptive analyses. In addition, participants were distributed into different age groups on a 10-year basis, i.e., 11–20, 21–30, 31–40, 41–50, and > 50 years. The means were compared between the left and right eyes using a paired sample t-test26 and the means of the different age groups were compared using analysis of variance. Spearman’s correlation analysis was used to explore the correlation between 35 biomechanical parameters and demographic/ocular characteristics (including age, IOP, and CCT). Significance was set at P < 0.05. A stepwise multivariate linear regression analysis was performed using demographic/ocular characteristics (including age, IOP, and CCT) as independent variables and 35 biomechanical parameters as dependent variables, in order to avoid the possibility of Type I errors, the test level was then adjusted using the Bonferroni correction and was considered statistically significant when P < 0.0014(0.05/35 ≈ 0.0014).

Results

Demographic and ocular characteristics

This cross-sectional study was conducted on 864 (431 right and 433 left) eyes of 543 normal individuals. The demographic characteristics of the participants in each age group are described in Table 2. In the 864 eyes analyzed in the study, there were approximately equal numbers in each age group, and the CCT was matched across age groups. Table 2 Demographic and ocular characteristics of the participants.

Parameters	Age groups (years)	Total	
11–20	21–30	31–40	41–50	 > 50	
Number of subjects (543)	105	112	113	100	113	543	
Age (mean ± SD, years)	17.91 ± 2.17	24.97 ± 2.71	34.30 ± 2.71	45.59 ± 3.16	62.46 ± 7.90	36.99 ± 16.32	
Number of study eyes (864)	174	174	171	173	172	864	
Number of Right eye (431)	88	87	85	83	88	431	
Number of Left eye (433)	86	87	86	90	84	433	
CCT(mean ± SD,μm)	532.14 ± 28.674	529.88 ± 27.82	521.70 ± 33.77	537.59 ± 38.70	532.59 ± 30.96	530.80 ± 32.65	
IOP(mean ± SD, mmHg)	14.106 ± 2.611	13.974 ± 3.189	14.082 ± 4.6389	14.312 ± 4.423	15.244 ± 6.070	14.34 ± 4.38	
IOP intraocular pressure, CCT central corneal thickness.

Corneal biomechanical parameters

The analysis of the correlation between the left and right eyes and the 35 biomechanical parameters revealed that 13 of them were significantly correlated with the differences between the eyes (Table 3). Moreover, the deflection length of the cornea was significantly different between the left and right eyes, regardless of whether it pertained to the first or second applanation. Table 3 The M ± SD values of the corneal biomechanical parameters in left and right eyes.

Parameters	Left	Right	p	
M	 ± SD	M	 ± SD	
First applanation A1	
 A1T (ms)	7.42	0.51	7.39	0.50	0.81	
 A1V (m/s)	0.14	0.02	0.14	0.02	0.62	
 A1DLA (mm):	0.09	0.02	0.10	0.02	0.13	
 A1DLL (mm):	2.35	0.39	2.27	0.30	0.43	
 A1DLAr (mm):	0.17	0.06	0.17	0.06	0.18	
 A1dArcL (mm):	− 0.02	0.01	− 0.02	0.01	 < 0.05	
 A1DA (mm):	0.13	0.02	0.13	0.02	 < 0.05	
Second applanation A2	
 A2T (ms)	21.80	0.68	21.78	0.56	0.334	
 A2V (m/s)	− 0.27	0.05	− 0.27	0.05	 < 0.05	
 A2DLA (mm):	0.11	0.09	0.11	0.03	0.25	
 A2DLL (mm):	2.95	0.74	2.54	0.57	0.25	
 A2DLAr (mm):	0.24	0.29	0.22	0.09	0.12	
 A2dArcL (mm):	− 0.02	0.02	− 0.02	0.01	0.660	
 A2DA (mm):	0.38	0.09	0.38	0.10	 < 0.05	
Highest concavity	
 HCT (ms)	16.92	0.50	16.97	0.63	 < 0.05	
 HCDLA (mm):	0.91	0.16	0.89	0.14	 < 0.05	
 HCDLL (mm):	6.49	0.64	6.42	0.63	 < 0.05	
 HCDLAr (mm):	3.28	0.82	3.20	0.67	 < 0.05	
 HCdArcL (mm):	− 0.12	0.03	− 0.12	0.03	0.092	
 HCDA (mm)	1.06	0.16	1.05	0.13	0.087	
 Radius (mm)	6.90	0.92	6.90	0.84	0.887	
 PD (mm)	5.00	0.47	4.98	0.41	 < 0.05	
Maximum	
 MIR (mm−1):	0.18	0.03	0.18	0.02	0.692	
 WEMML (mm):	0.28	0.09	0.28	0.08	 < 0.05	
 WEMMT (ms):	21.56	0.48	21.41	0.96	 < 0.05	
 dArcLM (mm):	− 0.15	0.05	− 0.15	0.04	0.107	
 DLAML (mm):	0.93	0.19	0.91	0.13	0.227	
 DLAMT (ms):	16.10	1.00	16.13	0.65	0.166	
Vinciguerra screening parameter	
 bIOP	14.23	4.15	14.28	3.98	0.314	
 CBI	0.61	0.28	0.68	0.26	 < 0.05	
 SPA1	93.78	22.67	95.98	23.36	0.218	
 INR (mm−1):	8.68	1.73	8.58	1.41	0.658	
 DARM [1 mm]	1.60	0.08	1.60	0.08	0.233	
 DARM [2 mm]	4.47	0.67	4.45	0.63	0.946	
 SSI	1.08	0.28	1.09	0.28	 < 0.05	
Significant values are in bold.

In this study, we analyzed 35 corneal biomechanical parameters, including 28 DCR parameters and seven Vinciguerra screening parameters, with a particular emphasis on three new parameters (CBI, SSI, and SPA1). We investigated whether these parameters differed across age groups, as described in detail below.

Dynamic corneal response parameters in the different age groups

Out of the 28 DCR parameters under study, 22 were significantly different across the age groups (P < 0.05). At applanation 1, all parameters other than A1V differed significantly among the age groups (P < 0.05). At applanation 2, A2T was similar across the different age groups (P > 0.05), whereas the remaining parameters were significantly different across the age groups (P < 0.05). In turn, at the HC, all parameters were significantly different (P < 0.05), with the exception of HCdArcL and Radius (P > 0.05). Regarding the Max parameters, all parameters but MIR and WEMMT differed significantly across the age groups (P < 0.05). Table 4 reports the corneal biomechanical parameters in the various age groups. Table 4 The mean ± SD values of dynamic corneal response parameters and Vinciguerra screening parameters in the different age groups.

Parameters	Age groups (years)	P	
11–20	21–30	31–40	41–50	 > 50	
First applanation A1	
 A1T (ms)	7.364 ± 0.298	7.348 ± 0.360	7.372 ± 0.532	7.415 ± 0.527	7.517 ± 0.691	 < 0.05	
 A1V (m/s)	0.136 ± 0.017	0.139 ± 0.018	0.091 ± 0.010	0.139 ± 0.024	0.136 ± 0.023	 = 0.11	
 A1DLA (mm):	0.091 ± 0.009	0.088 ± 0.009	0.141 ± 0.021	0.100 ± 0.025	0.104 ± 0.030	 < 0.05	
 A1DLL (mm):	2.236 ± 0.139	2.234 ± 0.139	2.232 ± 0.182	2.454 ± 0.579	2.371 ± 0.402	 < 0.05	
 A1DLAr (mm):	0.171 ± 0.027	0.158 ± 0.030	0.167 ± 0.029	0.189 ± 0.083	0.192 ± 0.076	 < 0.05	
 A1dArcL (mm):	− 0.016 ± 0.004	− 0.015 ± 0.004	− 0.016 ± 0.004	− 0.019 ± 0.007	− 0.021 ± 0.009	 < 0.05	
 A1DA (mm):	0.126 ± 0.010	0.127 ± 0.009	0.127 ± 0.011	0.138 ± 0.029	0.137 ± 0.018	 < 0.05	
Second applanation A2	
 A2T (ms)	21.798 ± 0.351	21.821 ± 0.408	21.862 ± 0.817	21.735 ± 0.711	21.721 ± 0.682	 = 0.19	
 A2V (m/s)	− 0.275 ± 0.032	− 0.2752 ± 0.043	− 0.267 ± 0.040	− 0.275 ± 0.062	− 0.260 ± 0.052	 < 0.05	
 A2DLA (mm):	0.102 ± 0.014	0.097 ± 0.012	0.100 ± 0.012	0.122 ± 0.135	0.119 ± 0.041	 < 0.05	
 A2DLL (mm):	2.612 ± 0.542	2.646 ± 0.509	2.594 ± 0.570	2.986 ± 0.866	2.874 ± 0.806	 < 0.05	
 A2DLAr (mm):	0.217 ± 0.051	0.201 ± 0.044	0.204 ± 0.045	0.284 ± 0.449	0.256 ± 0.129	 < 0.05	
 A2dArcL (mm):	− 0.019 ± 0.006	− 0.018 ± 0.005	− 0.019 ± 0.006	− 0.026 ± 0.034	− 0.025 ± 0.016	 < 0.05	
 A2DA (mm):	0.324 ± 0.058	0.342 ± 0.063	0.372 ± 0.069	0.413 ± 0.116	0.437 ± 0.082	 < 0.05	
Highest concavity	
 HCT (ms)	16.810 ± 0.391	16.935 ± 0.466	16.936 ± 0.492	16.889 ± 0.778	17.148 ± 0.594	 < 0.05	
 HCDLA (mm):	0.924 ± 0.096	0.920 ± 0.107	0.900 ± 0.125	0.913 ± 0.198	0.839 ± 0.180	 < 0.05	
 HCDLL (mm):	6.566 ± 0.439	6.569 ± 0.512	6.473 ± 0.553	6.497 ± 0.701	6.166 ± 0.825	 < 0.05	
 HCDLAr (mm):	3.356 ± 0.465	3.361 ± 0.564	3.248 ± 0.599	3.302 ± 1.023	2.932 ± 0.869	 < 0.05	
 HCdArcL (mm):	− 0.125 ± 0.027	− 0.120 ± 0.030	− 0.122 ± 0.029	− 0.125 ± 0.039	− 0.123 ± 0.035	 = 0.61	
 HCDA (mm)	1.030 ± 0.094	1.046 ± 0.119	1.054 ± 0.189	1.087 ± 0.158	1.052 ± 0.163	 < 0.05	
 Radius (mm)	6.848 ± 0.863	6.905 ± 0.718	6.858 ± 0.783	6.956 ± 1.136	6.914 ± 0.838	 = 0.79	
 PD (mm)	5.053 ± 0.226	5.050 ± 0.336	5.020 ± 0.434	5.021 ± 0.499	4.791 ± 0.570	 < 0.05	
Maximum	
 MIR (mm−1)	0.178 ± 0.020	0.180 ± 0.019	0.182 ± 0.021	0.182 ± 0.030	0.177 ± 0.025	 = 0.21	
 WEMML (mm)	0.230 ± 0.058	0.236 ± 0.059	0.277 ± 0.066	0.307 ± 0.086	0.342 ± 0.090	 < 0.05	
 WEMMT (ms):	21.486 ± 0.401	21.484 ± 0.469	21.575 ± 0.461	21.441 ± 1.273	21.446 ± 0.804	 = 0.49	
 DLAML (mm):	0.934 ± 0.099	0.931 ± 0.107	0.919 ± 0.127	0.954 ± 0.249	0.866 ± 0.178	 < 0.05	
 DLAMT (ms):	16.311 ± 0.454	16.211 ± 0.469	16.018 ± 1.055	15.996 ± 1.222	16.024 ± 0.673	 < 0.05	
 dArcLM (mm):	− 0.143 ± 0.031	− 0.137 ± 0.033	− 0.146 ± 0.039	− 0.160 ± 0.054	− 0.159 ± 0.043	 < 0.05	
Vinciguerra screening parameter	
 DARM [2 mm]	4.457 ± 0.513	4.595 ± 0.620	4.545 ± 0.598	4.438 ± 0.741	4.249 ± 0.699	 < 0.05	
 DARM [1 mm]	1.6031 ± 0.063	1.617 ± 0.075	1.6155 ± 0.068	1.597 ± 0.094	1.575 ± 0.086	 < 0.05	
 SPA1	94.551 ± 17.709	92.907 ± 18.949	91.410 ± 20.260	94.083 ± 28.708	101.442 ± 26.162	 < 0.05	
 INR (mm−1)	8.689 ± 1.192	8.820 ± 1.327	8.777 ± 1.392	8.743 ± 2.117	8.105 ± 1.585	 < 0.05	
 bIOP(mmHg)	14.345 ± 2.203	14.068 ± 3.154	14.330 ± 4.238	14.160 ± 4.287	14.377 ± 5.610	 = 0.94	
 CBI	0.666 ± 0.247	0.6889 ± 0.224	0.690 ± 0.258	0.597 ± 0.304	0.597 ± 0.296	 < 0.05	
 SSI	0.977 ± 0.160	0.994 ± 0.208	1.044 ± 0.218	1.107 ± 0.311	1.326 ± 0.298	 < 0.05	
Significant values are in bold.

Vinciguerra screening parameters in the different age groups

Among the seven Vinciguerra screening parameters under study, only bIOP was similar among the age groups. In contrast, the remaining six parameters, i.e., deformation amplitude ratio (DARM) 2 mm and 1 mm, SPA1, integrated radius (INR), CBI, and SSI, were significantly different across the age groups (P < 0.05). The mean biomechanically-corrected Intraocular pressure (bIOP) value was lowest in the 21–30-year-old group and highest in the > 50-year-old group.

We analyzed the distribution of new parameters (including CBI, SPA1 and SSI) among different age groups emphatically (Fig. 1). The results showed that SPA1 had an upward trend after the age of 30, and SSI showed a significantly rising trend across the five age groups.Fig. 1 Mean values of new biomechanical parameters (including SPA1, CBI, and SSI) for all subgroups according to age and shows the variation by age (ANOVA).

Spearman’s correlation and stepwise multivariate linear regression analyses

Table 5 lists the results of Spearman’s correlation analysis, which revealed that, out of the 35 parameters under analysis, 27 were significantly associated with age, 23 were significantly associated with IOP, and 24 were significantly associated with CCT. Table 5 Correlation between demographic/ocular characteristics and corneal biomechanical parameters.

	Age	IOP	CCT	
r	p	r	p	r	p	
First applanation A1	
 A1T (ms)	0.009	0.797	0.966	0.000	0.342	0.000	
 A1V (m/s)	0.007	0.848	− 0.812	0.000	− 0.304	0.000	
 A1DLA (mm):	0.368	0.000	0.085	0.012	0.111	0.001	
 A1DLL (mm):	0.265	0.000	0.307	0.000	0.318	0.000	
 A1DLAr (mm):	0.197	0.000	0.040	0.235	0.074	0.030	
 A1dArcL (mm):	− 0.369	0.000	− 0.136	0.000	− 0.132	0.000	
 A1DA (mm):	0.313	0.000	0.428	0.000	0.295	0.000	
Second applanation A2	
 A2T (ms)	0.010	0.765	− 0.816	0.000	− 0.166	0.000	
 A2V (m/s)	0.100	0.003	0.659	0.000	0.217	0.000	
 A2DLA (mm):	0.306	0.000	0.059	0.082	0.120	0.000	
 A2DLL (mm):	0.171	0.000	0.073	0.032	0.197	0.000	
 A2DLAr (mm):	0.225	0.000	0.046	0.181	0.111	0.001	
 A2dArcL (mm):	− 0.275	0.000	− 0.120	0.000	− .084	0.014	
 A2DA (mm):	0.500	0.000	− 0.040	0.241	0.079	0.021	
Highest concavity	
 HCT (ms)	0.206	0.000	− 0.063	0.064	0.028	0.415	
 HCDLA (mm):	− 0.187	0.000	− 0.089	0.009	− 0.050	0.143	
 HCDLL (mm):	− 0.182	0.000	− 0.058	0.089	− 0.005	0.885	
 HCDLAr (mm):	− 0.211	0.000	− 0.082	0.015	− 0.044	0.201	
 HCdArcL (mm):	− 0.011	0.740	0.003	0.925	− 0.029	0.389	
 HCDA (mm)	0.104	0.002	− 0.776	0.000	− 0.265	0.000	
 Radius (mm)	0.046	0.179	0.315	0.000	0.276	0.000	
 PD (mm)	− 0.180	0.000	− 0.670	0.000	− 0.245	0.000	
Maximum	
 MIR (mm−1)	− 0.033	0.328	− 0.029	0.390	− 0.070	0.040	
 WEMML(mm)	0.491	0.000	0.006	0.866	0.058	0.087	
 WEMMT (ms):	0.047	0.167	− 0.031	0.358	0.015	0.666	
 DLAML (mm):	− 0.134	0.000	− 0.090	0.008	− 0.040	0.241	
 DLAMT (ms):	− 0.166	0.000	− 0.019	0.584	− 0.023	0.503	
 dArcLM (mm):	− 0.195	0.000	− 0.005	0.882	− 0.078	0.022	
Vinciguerra screening parameter	
 DARM [2 mm]	− 0.115	0.001	− 0.131	0.000	− 0.116	0.001	
 DARM [1 mm]	− 0.132	0.000	− 0.144	0.000	− 0.114	0.001	
 INR(mm−1)	0.137	0.000	− 0.115	0.001	− 0.101	0.003	
 SP A1	0.066	0.051	0.807	0.000	0.564	0.000	
 SSI	0.429	0.000	0.354	0.000	0.080	0.019	
 bIOP(mmHg)	− 0.111	0.001	0.153	0.000	− 0.002	0.965	
 CBI	− 0.111	0.001	0.153	0.000	− 0.002	0.965	
R, Pearson’s correlation coefficient; P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Significant values are in bold.

The results of the stepwise multivariate linear regression analysis are reported in Table 6. We aimed to study the effect of demographic/ocular characteristics (including age, IOP, and CCT) on cornea biomechanical parameters. Therefore, the demographic/ocular characteristics mentioned above were used as the independent variables and the 35 biomechanical parameters were used as the dependent variables in the stepwise multivariate linear regression analysis, which revealed that 21 out of 35, 13 out of 35, and 11 out of 35 biomechanical parameters were significantly correlated with age, IOP, and CCT, respectively. 11 corneal biomechanical parameters were positively correlated with age and 10 were negatively correlated with age. CBI was significantly negatively correlated with IOP and CCT, SSI was significantly positively correlated with age and IOP, and SPA1 was positively correlated with IOP and CCT. Table 6 Results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis between dynamic corneal response parameters and demographics/ocular characteristics.

	Age	IOP	CCT	
Β	Sta. β	P	Β	Sta. β	P	Β	Sta. β	P	
First applanation A1	
 A1T (ms)				0.113	0.978	0.000				
 A1V (m/s)				− 0.003	− 0.700	0.000	− 0.000	− 0.115	0.000	
 A1DLA (mm):	0.004	0.261	0.000							
 A1DLL (mm):	0.044	0.180	0.000	0.012	0.148	0.000	0.002	0.159	0.000	
 A1DLAr (mm):	0.007	0.172	0.000							
 A1dArcL (mm):	− 0.001	− 0.304	0.000				− 0.000	− 0.125	0.000	
 A1DA (mm):	0.003	0.235	0.000	0.001	0.362	0.000	0.000	0.124	0.000	
Second applanation A2	
 A2T (ms)				− 0.110	− 0.776	0.000	0.002	0.084	0.000	
 A2V (m/s)				0.007	0.658	0.000				
 A2DLA (mm):	0.006	0.127	0.000							
 A2DLL (mm):	0.084	0.172	0.000				0.002	0.111	0.001	
 A2DLAr (mm):										
 A2dArcL (mm):	− 0.002	− 0.152	0.000							
 A2DA (mm):	0.030	0.469	0.000							
Highest concavity	
 HCT (ms)	0.066	0.163	0.000							
 HCDLA (mm):	− 0.017	− 0.158	0.000							
 HCDLL (mm):	− 0.083	− 0.184	0.000							
 HCDLAr (mm):	− 0.087	− 0.164	0.000							
 HCdArcL (mm):							0.000	− 0.150	0.000	
 HCDA (mm)	0.014	0.134	0.000	− 0.024	− 0.708	0.000				
 Radius (mm)				0.047	0.233	0.000	0.006	0.209	0.000	
 PD (mm)	− 0.037	− 0.118	0.000	− 0.071	− 0.705	0.000				
Maximum	
 MIR (mm−1)										
 WEMML(mm)	0.029	0.493	0.000							
 WEMMT (ms):										
 DLAML (mm):										
 DLAMT (ms):	− 0.079	− 0.133	0.000							
 dArcLM (mm):	− 0.005	− 0.183	0.000							
Vinciguerra screening parameter	
 DARM [2 mm]	− 0.052	− 0.113	0.001							
 DARM [1 mm]	− 0.007	− 0.132	0.000				0.000	− 0.135	0.000	
 SPA1				3.097	0.589	0.000	0.265	0.376	0.000	
 INR(mm−1)										
 bIOP(mmHg)				0.187	0.201	0.000				
 CBI				− 0.024	− 0.389	0.000	− 0.005	− 0.549	0.000	
 SSI	0.079	0.404	0.000	0.008	0.126	0.000				
Β, regression coefficient (β); Sta.β, standardized regression coefficient (β).

According to Bonferroni correction, P < 0.0014was considered statistically significant.

Significant values are in bold.

Discussion

Because of its significant value in clinical diagnosis, corneal biomechanics is highly valued by researchers. In recent years, the field of corneal biomechanics has developed rapidly, and the instruments that are used to measure corneal biomechanics have changed continuously, accompanied by the emergence of new parameters. ORA provides many biomechanical parameters and is an instrument that is widely used in the clinic; however, it cannot provide the DCR parameters4,20. Corvis ST, which is a new non-contact tonometry system that can use an ultra-high-speed Scheimpflug camera to record the cornea’s reaction under a defined air pulse27 was introduced in 2010. This instrument can display the dynamic deformation of the cornea in real time and directly describe the eye’s mechanical behavior. The Corvis ST instrument exhibits high repeatability and reproducibility in measuring DCR parameters in healthy eyes28. To improve the accuracy of the measurement of biomechanical parameters continuously, the versions of this software have been updated several times. In this study, the newer Corvis ST version (1.6r2015) was used to analyze 28 DCR parameters and seven Vinciguerra screening parameters, including new parameters, such as SPA1, SSI, and CBI. To the best of our knowledge, few studies have assessed these new parameters simultaneously. Moreover, the present work is one of the most extensive studies that analyzed the association between corneal biomechanical parameters (provided by the newer Corvis ST version) and different age groups in a healthy Chinese population.

Our chief observations were as follows: 1. most of the corneal biomechanical parameters were not significantly different between the right and left eyes; 2. among the 28 DCR parameters, 22 items differed significantly between age groups; 3. SPA1 showing an upward trend after the age of 30 and SSI displaying a significantly upward trend when comparing the five age groups ; and 4. most of the parameters were significantly associated with demographic/ocular characteristics (including age, IOP, and CCT). Regarding the new parameters, CBI was significantly negatively correlated with IOP and CCT, SSI was significantly positively correlated with age and IOP, and SPA1 was positively correlated with IOP and CCT. In the following paragraphs, we discuss these observations at length.

In the analysis,13 parameters significantly different between right and left eyes. Moreover, the deflection length of the cornea differed significantly between the left and right eyes, regardless of whether it pertained to the first or second applanation. There are few studies available in this area of research. We wonder whether the observed variation between the left and right eyes is related to human asymmetric behavioral traits, such as the dominant eye29. However, at present, most of the studies of the dominant eye addressed refractive error, cataract, and amblyopia29–32, and few reports pertain to corneal biomechanics. Therefore, further exploration is needed to determine the specific mechanisms underlying the differences in biomechanical parameters observed between the left and right eyes.

In the analysis of “DCR parameters and age groups”, we found that most of the DCR parameters varied significantly among the different age groups. Many previous studies have confirmed our view: Elsheikh et al.33 show that the HC radius is significantly related to age; whereas Nathaniel et al.34 believe that whole eye movement max length(WEMML), deformation amplitude ratio (DARM), and radius are the parameters that are most affected by age. Whole eye movements are highly correlated with age, which can be explained by the fact that the composition of fat behind the eye ball changes with age, possibly leading to modifications in eye displacement under the air puff. Conversely, the correlation between the radius and age as well as the ratio of deformation amplitude may indicate their ability to quantify corneal biomechanics. In a study conducted by the Instituto de Olhos Renato Ambrósio, the maximum concave time was positively correlated with age35. Marta et al.36 reported significant differences between age groups during the second applanation.

Experimental studies performed in vitro have shown that corneal collagen fiber properties change with age, which explain the changes in corneal biomechanical parameters that occur with age37,38. In addition, Sherrard et al. demonstrated that corneal stiffness increases with age39. We believe that, with the increase of age, the diameter of collagen fibers38 as well as the collagen crosslinking of the corneal matrix increase, resulting in decreased corneal viscosity and increased hardness38,40,41. Moreover, the rate of stiffness increases in a nonlinear trend, which is more significant in older age groups37. Regarding the specific mechanism underlying this phenomenon, some studies have elaborated that (1) the increase in the number of collagen molecules is the main factor causing the increase in collagen fiber diameter, with the increase in the Bragg spacing between collagen molecules being another causative factor38; (2) as age increases, glycosylation induces the expansion of the spacing between molecules, leading to an increase in the crosslinking of molecules37; (3) when nonenzyme crosslinking increases, the cross-sectional area of collagen fibers32 and the fibril molecules of the cornea increase as a result8,37; and (4) when the proteoglycan composition of the inter-fibrillary matrix changes, the interfibrillar spacing42 decreases. Moreover, with age, the increase in corneal hardness may be related to the progression of glaucoma (older, harder corneas are less deformed, rendering the sieve plate more susceptible to damage)43,44. Therefore, it is imperative to explore fully the correlation between corneal biomechanical characteristics and age.

Our analytical data showed that A1 time (A1T) and highest concavity time (HCT) were positively correlated with age, whereas A2 time (A2T) was similar across the different age groups. A study of 35 patients with diabetes12 reported that A2T can represent the time-related part of the corneal viscoelastic response and can be used as an indicator of corneal viscoelasticity. This parameter is not only affected by corneal resistance, but also related to the cornea’s viscous damping properties. Moreover, when corneal hydration increases, the viscosity of the cornea may also increase. This hydration change may affect the measuring repeatability of A2T at different times of the same day45.

We also explored the Vinciguerra screening parameters. Our results showed that these seven parameters, with the exception of bIOP, varied significantly among the different age groups. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study that explored the age-related variations in the new Corvis ST parameters (SPA1, CBI, and SSI) in Chinese population. Our study showed that these new parameters were significantly different across the five age groups (P < 0.05). SPA1 is a corneal hardness parameter obtained by generating the initial data measured by Corvis ST, followed by calculation using a specific equation that considers the effect of mixed factors, such as IOP and eye movement. SPA1 is expected to become an effective indicator of cornea’s ability to resist deformation10. The SSI algorithm, which uses the least square method, and finite element models, which simulate the effects of IOP and the Corvis ST air puff, can predict corneal behavior12. SSI is a parameter that describes the intrinsic material stiffness of the cornea, with an SSI value > 1.0 indicating that the cornea is stiffer and a value < 1.0 indicating a softer cornea46. A previous study noted that SSI is significantly associated with age, which is consistent with our findings. Using a stepwise multiple linear regression, we observed a significant positive correlation between SSI and age.We can conclude that, with aging, the hardness of the cornea increases, which may be attributed to age-related changes in the corneal microstructure and changes in collagen fiber strength42. Fully understanding the relationship between corneal hardness parameters and age can help track the progression of dilated corneal diseases, such as keratoconus, and provide a reference for the study of refractive surgery. In the study of healthy Indians, CBI was positively correlated with age24, whereas CBI had no correlation with age in my research. This discrepancy in results may be related to the small sample size and genetic ancestry differences.

In our study, Spearman’s correlation analysis and stepwise multiple linear regression analysis showed that many corneal biomechanical parameters were affected by age, IOP, and CCT, which is consistent with previous findings. Hun Lee et al.14 pointed out that IOP was positively correlated with radius, and negatively correlated with max inverse radius (MIR). In addition, Vinciguerra et al.33 showed that theradius and DARM were associated with CCT. Another study performed in Hong Kong showed that peak distance (PD) was positively correlated with IOP and CCT, which differed from our stepwise multivariate linear regression results, in which PD was not associated with CCT and exhibited a negative correlation with IOP. The study reported by Lisa Ramm et al.12 showed that SSI had no significant correlation with CCT and IOP, whereas in the present study, SSI was significantly associated with IOP. This difference may be attributed to ethnic differences and the effects of systemic diseases, such as diabetes, which are not taken into account, as hyperglycemia in diabetes mellitus may cause changes in corneal biomechanics12 resulting in significant differences.

Zhang et al.47 pointed out that corneal stiffness was positively correlated with CCT and IOP; similarly, our analysis showed that a corneal-hardness-related parameter (SPA1) was positively associated with IOP and CCT. Therefore, when the corneal thickness and the intraocular pressure increase, the hardness of the cornea increases accordingly. We can explain this phenomenon based on the mechanism of corneal changes in glaucoma or corneal edema. An increase in intraocular pressure causes a change in the diameter of the cornea, which leads to a variation in corneal radius and redistributes the mechanical force of the corneal tissue48. Concomitantly, as intraocular pressure increases and the cornea hardens, it is more difficult for Corvis ST, which uses air blowing, to deform the cornea, and easier for the cornea to regain its shape. Thus, when the intraocular pressure increases, the first applanation takes a longer time and the second applanation is shorter. Our findings confirmed this view—the stepwise multiple linear regression showed that A1T was positively correlated with IOP, and that A2T was negatively correlated with IOP.

One of the advantages of the present research was that we used the newer Corvis ST version (1.6r2015) to study the corneal biomechanical parameters, especially the correlation between age and new parameters, such as SPA1, SSI, and CBI. Moreover, we conducted single-factor and multi-factor analyses of three demographic/ocular characteristics and 35 corneal biomechanical parameters. However, the present study also had several limitations. First, the study of corneal biomechanical characteristics was not sufficiently comprehensive because it lacked some items, such as astigmia and mean keratometry. Second, this was an observational cross-sectional study, in which it was impossible to determine the mechanism via which the corneal biomechanics change with age. In addition, we did not consider the effects of hormone-related factors, such as the menstrual cycle and long-term use of prostaglandins, on the measurement parameters49,50, or the effects of systemic diseases, such as diabetes12.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we performed a cross-sectional study in a large, healthy Chinese population and examined the correlation between corneal biomechanical parameters (including 28 DCR parameters and seven Vinciguerra screening parameters) across age groups; we also explored the factors that affected the corneal biomechanical parameters. Most of the corneal biomechanical parameters were significantly different among the age groups; moreover, they were significantly correlated withIOP and CCT. These results may provide a basis for the application of the new version of Corvis ST to ocular diseases, as well as a reference for the study of corneal biomechanics in the Chinese population. The adequate study of biomechanical parameters in different age groups is essential for the decision-making process in individual patients.

Author contributions

YG and LG contributed equally to this work. LG, WY collected data that met the inclusion criteria. YG completed the statistical analysis and produced the first draft of the manuscript. YJ and LT contributed to the concept of the study, helped supervise the project, and gave critical revision of the article. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This research was supported by “The Youth Beijing Scholars program”, Natural Science Foundation of China (82171101); Beijing Nova Program (Z181100006218099); The Beijing Natural Science Foundation (7242019); The Capital Health Research and Development of Special (2024–2-1082); Beijing Nova Program (H020420160130); The Open Research Fund from Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-Based Precision Medicine, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Beihang University, and Capital Medical University (BHTR-KFJJ-202001).

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Ethics Committee of Beijing Tongren Hospital. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

These authors contributed equally: Yihan Guo and Li-Li Guo.
==== Refs
References

1. Moshirfar M Motlagh MN Murri MS Momeni-Moghaddam H Ronquillo YC Hoopes PC Advances in biomechanical parameters for screening of refractive surgery candidates: A review of the literature, part III Med. Hypothesis Discov. Innov. Ophthalmol. 2019 8 219 240 31598522
Moshirfar, M. et al. Advances in biomechanical parameters for screening of refractive surgery candidates: A review of the literature, part III. Med. Hypothesis Discov. Innov. Ophthalmol. 8, 219–240 (2019).31598522
2. Piñero DP Alcón N Corneal biomechanics: a review Clin. Exp. Optom. 2015 98 107 116 25470213
Piñero, D. P. & Alcón, N. Corneal biomechanics: a review. Clin. Exp. Optom. 98, 107–116 (2015).25470213
3. Kerautret J Colin J Touboul D Roberts C Biomechanical characteristics of the ectatic cornea J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2008 34 510 513 18299080
Kerautret, J., Colin, J., Touboul, D. & Roberts, C. Biomechanical characteristics of the ectatic cornea. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 34, 510–513 (2008).18299080
4. Bao F Geraghty B Wang Q Elsheikh A Consideration of corneal biomechanics in the diagnosis and management of keratoconus: is it important? Eye Vis (Lond) 2016 3 18 27382596
Bao, F., Geraghty, B., Wang, Q. & Elsheikh, A. Consideration of corneal biomechanics in the diagnosis and management of keratoconus: is it important?. Eye Vis (Lond) 3, 18 (2016).27382596
5. Tian L Huang YF Wang LQ Bai H Wang Q Jiang JJ Corneal biomechanical assessment using corneal visualization scheimpflug technology in keratoconic and normal eyes J. Ophthalmol. 2014 2014 147516 24800059
Tian, L. et al. Corneal biomechanical assessment using corneal visualization scheimpflug technology in keratoconic and normal eyes. J. Ophthalmol. 2014, 147516 (2014).24800059
6. Ortiz D Piñero D Shabayek MH Arnalich-Montiel F Alió JL Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post-laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyes J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2007 33 1371 1375 17662426
Ortiz, D., Piñero, D., Shabayek, M. H., Arnalich-Montiel, F. & Alió, J. L. Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post-laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyes. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 33, 1371–1375 (2007).17662426
7. Luce DA Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2005 31 156 162 15721708
Luce, D. A. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 31, 156–162 (2005).15721708
8. Clemmensen K Hjortdal J Intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanics in Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy and after posterior lamellar keratoplasty Acta Ophthalmol. 2014 92 350 354 23607620
Clemmensen, K. & Hjortdal, J. Intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanics in Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy and after posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Acta Ophthalmol. 92, 350–354 (2014).23607620
9. Kato Y Nakakura S Asaoka R Matsuya K Fujio Y Kiuchi Y Cataract surgery causes biomechanical alterations to the eye detectable by Corvis ST tonometry PLoS One 2017 12 e0171941 28222145
Kato, Y. et al. Cataract surgery causes biomechanical alterations to the eye detectable by Corvis ST tonometry. PLoS One 12, e0171941 (2017).28222145
10. Valbon BF Ambrósio R Jr Fontes BM Alves MR Effects of age on corneal deformation by non-contact tonometry integrated with an ultra-high-speed (UHS) Scheimpflug camera Arq. Bras Oftalmol. 2013 76 229 232 24061834
Valbon, B. F., Ambrósio, R. Jr., Fontes, B. M. & Alves, M. R. Effects of age on corneal deformation by non-contact tonometry integrated with an ultra-high-speed (UHS) Scheimpflug camera. Arq. Bras Oftalmol. 76, 229–232 (2013).24061834
11. Kenia VP Kenia RV Pirdankar OH Association between corneal biomechanical parameters and myopic refractive errors in young Indian individuals Taiwan J. Ophthalmol. 2020 10 45 53 32309124
Kenia, V. P., Kenia, R. V. & Pirdankar, O. H. Association between corneal biomechanical parameters and myopic refractive errors in young Indian individuals. Taiwan J. Ophthalmol. 10, 45–53 (2020).32309124
12. Eliasy A Chen KJ Vinciguerra R Lopes BT Abass A Vinciguerra P Determination of corneal biomechanical behavior in-vivo for healthy eyes using CorVis ST tonometry: Stress-strain index Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019 7 105 31157217
Eliasy, A. et al. Determination of corneal biomechanical behavior in-vivo for healthy eyes using CorVis ST tonometry: Stress-strain index. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 7, 105 (2019).31157217
13. Wang W He M He H Zhang C Jin H Zhong X Corneal biomechanical metrics of healthy Chinese adults using Corvis ST Cont. Lens Anterior Eye 2017 40 97 103 27964894
Wang, W. et al. Corneal biomechanical metrics of healthy Chinese adults using Corvis ST. Cont. Lens Anterior Eye 40, 97–103 (2017).27964894
14. Elsheikh A Wang D Brown M Rama P Campanelli M Pye D Assessment of corneal biomechanical properties and their variation with age Curr. Eye Res. 2007 32 11 19 17364730
Elsheikh, A. et al. Assessment of corneal biomechanical properties and their variation with age. Curr. Eye Res. 32, 11–19 (2007).17364730
15. El Massry AAK Said AA Osman IM Bessa AS Elmasry MA Elsayed EN Corneal biomechanics in different age groups Int. Ophthalmol. 2020 40 967 974 31916064
El Massry, A. A. K. et al. Corneal biomechanics in different age groups. Int. Ophthalmol. 40, 967–974 (2020).31916064
16. Kenia VP Kenia RV Pirdankar OH Age-related variation in corneal biomechanical parameters in healthy Indians Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2020 68 2921 2929 33229671
Kenia, V. P., Kenia, R. V. & Pirdankar, O. H. Age-related variation in corneal biomechanical parameters in healthy Indians. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 68, 2921–2929 (2020).33229671
17. Celebi ARC Kilavuzoglu AE Altiparmak UE Cosar YC Age-related change in corneal biomechanical parameters in a healthy Caucasian population Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2018 25 55 62 28891725
Celebi, A. R. C., Kilavuzoglu, A. E., Altiparmak, U. E. & Cosar, Y. C. Age-related change in corneal biomechanical parameters in a healthy Caucasian population. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 25, 55–62 (2018).28891725
18. Chua J Nongpiur ME Zhao W Tham YC Gupta P Sabanayagam C Comparison of corneal biomechanical properties between Indian and Chinese adults Ophthalmology 2017 124 1271 1279 28461014
Chua, J. et al. Comparison of corneal biomechanical properties between Indian and Chinese adults. Ophthalmology 124, 1271–1279 (2017).28461014
19. Vinciguerra R Herber R Wang Y Zhang F Zhou X Bai J Corneal biomechanics differences between Chinese and Caucasian healthy subjects Front. Med. (Lausanne) 2022 9 834663 35280913
Vinciguerra, R. et al. Corneal biomechanics differences between Chinese and Caucasian healthy subjects. Front. Med. (Lausanne) 9, 834663 (2022).35280913
20. Shen Y., Chen X., Xian Y., Wang X., Wang X., Zhou X. Safety of intraocular pressure measurement using air-puff tonometer following implantable Collamer lens implantation . J Cataract Refract Surg, 2022.
21. Chan TC Wang YM Yu M Jhanji V Comparison of corneal dynamic parameters and tomographic measurements using Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconus Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2018 102 42 47 28559422
Chan, T. C., Wang, Y. M., Yu, M. & Jhanji, V. Comparison of corneal dynamic parameters and tomographic measurements using Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconus. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 102, 42–47 (2018).28559422
22. Lanza M Iaccarino S Bifani M In vivo human corneal deformation analysis with a Scheimpflug camera, a critical review J. Biophoton. 2016 9 464 477
Lanza, M., Iaccarino, S. & Bifani, M. In vivo human corneal deformation analysis with a Scheimpflug camera, a critical review. J. Biophoton. 9, 464–477 (2016).
23. Flockerzi E Vinciguerra R Belin MW Vinciguerra P Ambrósio R Jr Seitz B Correlation of the corvis biomechanical factor with tomographic parameters in keratoconus J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2022 48 215 221 34321407
Flockerzi, E. et al. Correlation of the corvis biomechanical factor with tomographic parameters in keratoconus. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 48, 215–221 (2022).34321407
24. Kenia VP Kenia RV Pirdankar OH Short term changes in corneal stress-strain index and other corneal biomechanical parameters post-laser in situ keratomileusis Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2021 69 2650 2656 34571607
Kenia, V. P., Kenia, R. V. & Pirdankar, O. H. Short term changes in corneal stress-strain index and other corneal biomechanical parameters post-laser in situ keratomileusis. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 69, 2650–2656 (2021).34571607
25. Vinciguerra R Ambrósio R Jr Elsheikh A Roberts CJ Lopes B Morenghi E Detection of keratoconus with a new biomechanical index J. Refract. Surg. 2016 32 803 810 27930790
Vinciguerra, R. et al. Detection of keratoconus with a new biomechanical index. J. Refract. Surg. 32, 803–810 (2016).27930790
26. Armstrong RA Statistical guidelines for the analysis of data obtained from one or both eyes Ophthalmic. Physiol. Opt. 2013 33 7 14 23252852
Armstrong, R. A. Statistical guidelines for the analysis of data obtained from one or both eyes. Ophthalmic. Physiol. Opt. 33, 7–14 (2013).23252852
27. Krysik K Wroblewska-Czajka E Lyssek-Boron A Wylegala EA Dobrowolski D Total penetrating keratoplasty: Indications, therapeutic approach, and long-term follow-up J. Ophthalmol. 2018 2018 9580292 29850220
Krysik, K., Wroblewska-Czajka, E., Lyssek-Boron, A., Wylegala, E. A. & Dobrowolski, D. Total penetrating keratoplasty: Indications, therapeutic approach, and long-term follow-up. J. Ophthalmol. 2018, 9580292 (2018).29850220
28. Lopes BT Roberts CJ Elsheikh A Vinciguerra R Vinciguerra P Reisdorf S Repeatability and reproducibility of intraocular pressure and dynamic corneal response parameters assessed by the Corvis ST J. Ophthalmol. 2017 2017 8515742 28676837
Lopes, B. T. et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of intraocular pressure and dynamic corneal response parameters assessed by the Corvis ST. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 8515742 (2017).28676837
29. Dane S Aslankurt M Yazici AT The formation of cataract is earlier in the dominant eye Laterality 2007 12 167 171 17365632
Dane, S., Aslankurt, M. & Yazici, A. T. The formation of cataract is earlier in the dominant eye. Laterality 12, 167–171 (2007).17365632
30. Jiang J Xu J Wang Y Zheng J Xu D Correlation analysis of dominant eye and refractive error between monozygotic twins Int. J. Gen. Med. 2021 14 2631 2635 34168489
Jiang, J., Xu, J., Wang, Y., Zheng, J. & Xu, D. Correlation analysis of dominant eye and refractive error between monozygotic twins. Int. J. Gen. Med. 14, 2631–2635 (2021).34168489
31. Perdziak M Witkowska DK Gryncewicz W Ober JK Not only amblyopic but also dominant eye in subjects with strabismus show increased saccadic latency J. Vis. 2016 16 12 27559718
Perdziak, M., Witkowska, D. K., Gryncewicz, W. & Ober, J. K. Not only amblyopic but also dominant eye in subjects with strabismus show increased saccadic latency. J. Vis. 16, 12 (2016).27559718
32. Ooi TL He ZJ Sensory eye dominance: Relationship between eye and brain Eye Brain 2020 12 25 31 32021530
Ooi, T. L. & He, Z. J. Sensory eye dominance: Relationship between eye and brain. Eye Brain 12, 25–31 (2020).32021530
33. Elsheikh A Wang D Pye D Determination of the modulus of elasticity of the human cornea J. Refract. Surg. 2007 23 808 818 17985801
Elsheikh, A., Wang, D. & Pye, D. Determination of the modulus of elasticity of the human cornea. J. Refract. Surg. 23, 808–818 (2007).17985801
34. Knox Cartwright N. E., Tyrer J. R., Marshall J. Age-related differences in the elasticity of the human cornea. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011, 52: 4324-9.
35. Ambrósio R Jr Lopes BT Faria-Correia F Salomão MQ Bühren J Roberts CJ Integration of scheimpflug-based corneal tomography and biomechanical assessments for enhancing ectasia detection J Refract Surg 2017 33 434 443 28681902
Ambrósio, R. Jr. et al. Integration of scheimpflug-based corneal tomography and biomechanical assessments for enhancing ectasia detection. J Refract Surg 33, 434–443 (2017).28681902
36. Salouti R Alishiri AA Gharebaghi R Naderi M Jadidi K Shojaei-Baghini A Comparison among ocular response analyzer, Corvis ST and Goldmann applanation tonometry in healthy children Int. J. Ophthalmol. 2018 11 1330 1336 30140637
Salouti, R. et al. Comparison among ocular response analyzer, Corvis ST and Goldmann applanation tonometry in healthy children. Int. J. Ophthalmol. 11, 1330–1336 (2018).30140637
37. Elsheikh A Geraghty B Rama P Campanelli M Meek KM Characterization of age-related variation in corneal biomechanical properties J. R. Soc. Interface 2010 7 1475 1485 20392712
Elsheikh, A., Geraghty, B., Rama, P., Campanelli, M. & Meek, K. M. Characterization of age-related variation in corneal biomechanical properties. J. R. Soc. Interface 7, 1475–1485 (2010).20392712
38. Malik NS Moss SJ Ahmed N Furth AJ Wall RS Meek KM Ageing of the human corneal stroma: Structural and biochemical changes Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1992 1138 222 228 1547284
Malik, N. S. et al. Ageing of the human corneal stroma: Structural and biochemical changes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1138, 222–228 (1992).1547284
39. Brown KE Congdon NG Corneal structure and biomechanics: Impact on the diagnosis and management of glaucoma Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2006 17 338 343 16900024
Brown, K. E. & Congdon, N. G. Corneal structure and biomechanics: Impact on the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 17, 338–343 (2006).16900024
40. Doughty MJ Zaman ML Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach Surv. Ophthalmol. 2000 44 367 408 10734239
Doughty, M. J. & Zaman, M. L. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv. Ophthalmol. 44, 367–408 (2000).10734239
41. Regensburg NI Wiersinga WM van Velthoven ME Berendschot TT Zonneveld FW Baldeschi L Age and gender-specific reference values of orbital fat and muscle volumes in Caucasians Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2011 95 1660 1663 19955201
Regensburg, N. I. et al. Age and gender-specific reference values of orbital fat and muscle volumes in Caucasians. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 95, 1660–1663 (2011).19955201
42. Dubbelman M Sicam VA Van der Heijde GL The shape of the anterior and posterior surface of the aging human cornea Vision Res. 2006 46 993 1001 16266736
Dubbelman, M., Sicam, V. A. & Van der Heijde, G. L. The shape of the anterior and posterior surface of the aging human cornea. Vision Res. 46, 993–1001 (2006).16266736
43. 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. 2000 84 311 317 10684844
Albon, J., Karwatowski, W. S., Easty, D. L., Sims, T. J. & Duance, V. C. Age related changes in the non-collagenous components of the extracellular matrix of the human lamina cribrosa. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 84, 311–317 (2000).10684844
44. Bank R. A., Bayliss M. T., Lafeber F. P., Maroudas A., Tekoppele J. M. Ageing and zonal variation in post-translational modification of collagen in normal human articular cartilage. The age-related increase in non-enzymatic glycation affects biomechanical properties of cartilage . Biochem J, 1998, 330 (Pt 1): 345-51.
45. Wollensak G Spoerl E Seiler T Riboflavin/ultraviolet-a-induced collagen crosslinking for the treatment of keratoconus Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2003 135 620 627 12719068
Wollensak, G., Spoerl, E. & Seiler, T. Riboflavin/ultraviolet-a-induced collagen crosslinking for the treatment of keratoconus. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 135, 620–627 (2003).12719068
46. Hon Y Lam AK Corneal deformation measurement using Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry Optom. Vis. Sci. 2013 90 e1 8 23238261
Hon, Y. & Lam, A. K. Corneal deformation measurement using Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry. Optom. Vis. Sci. 90, e1-8 (2013).23238261
47. Scarcelli G Besner S Pineda R Yun SH Biomechanical characterization of keratoconus corneas ex vivo with Brillouin microscopy Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014 55 4490 4495 24938517
Scarcelli, G., Besner, S., Pineda, R. & Yun, S. H. Biomechanical characterization of keratoconus corneas ex vivo with Brillouin microscopy. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 55, 4490–4495 (2014).24938517
48. Touboul D Roberts C Kérautret J Garra C Maurice-Tison S Saubusse E Correlations between corneal hysteresis, intraocular pressure, and corneal central pachymetry J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2008 34 616 622 18361984
Touboul, D. et al. Correlations between corneal hysteresis, intraocular pressure, and corneal central pachymetry. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 34, 616–622 (2008).18361984
49. Lee R Chang RT Wong IY Lai JS Lee JW Singh K Novel parameter of corneal biomechanics that differentiate normals from glaucoma J. Glaucoma 2016 25 e603 e609 26035421
Lee, R. et al. Novel parameter of corneal biomechanics that differentiate normals from glaucoma. J. Glaucoma 25, e603–e609 (2016).26035421
50. Nemeth G Hassan Z Csutak A Szalai E Berta A Modis L Jr Repeatability of ocular biomechanical data measurements with a Scheimpflug-based noncontact device on normal corneas J. Refract. Surg. 2013 29 558 563 23909783
Nemeth, G. et al. Repeatability of ocular biomechanical data measurements with a Scheimpflug-based noncontact device on normal corneas. J. Refract. Surg. 29, 558–563 (2013).23909783
