Download PDF
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2019; 236(06): 806-815
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-125078
Klinische Studie
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Klinische Untersuchung zur Veränderung der kornealen Biomechanik bei Patienten mit systemischer Sklerodermie

Evaluation of Changes in Corneal Biomechanics in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis
Nicole Zimmermann
1   Augenheilkunde, Augenklinik am Wittenbergplatz, Berlin
,
Svea Brandt
2   Zahnärzte Winterhude, Brandt & Freitag, Hamburg
,
Jeanette Brünner
1   Augenheilkunde, Augenklinik am Wittenbergplatz, Berlin
,
Carl Erb
1   Augenheilkunde, Augenklinik am Wittenbergplatz, Berlin
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

eingereicht 23 March 2017

akzeptiert 13 December 2017

Publication Date:
07 March 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung Die Studie vergleicht die biomechanischen Eigenschaften der Hornhaut bei Patienten mit einer seit mindestens 10 Jahren bestehenden systemischen Sklerodermie (SSc) mit einer gesunden Kontrollkohorte.

Material und Methoden Untersucht wurden 14 SSc-Patienten und 38 Kontrollprobanden. Ein randomisiertes Studienauge wurde auf die kornealen biomechanischen Eigenschaften zentrale Hornhautdicke (CCT), korneale Hysterese (CH) und kornealer Resistenzfaktor (CRF) untersucht. Die Bestimmung des Augeninnendrucks (IOP) erfolgte anhand der Goldmann-Applanationstonometrie (GAT) und der dynamischen Konturtonometrie (DCT) sowie mittels Non-Contact-Tonometrie (NCT) mit dem Ocular Response Analyzer® (ORA) als Goldmann-Applanationstonometrie-korreliertem IOP (IOPgat) und hornhautdickenkompensiertem IOP (IOPcc).

Ergebnisse Der IOP war mittels DCT- und ORA-basierter NCT-Messung bei SSc-Patienten signifikant geringer als bei der Kontrollgruppe (DCT IOP: p = 0,048, NCT IOPgat: p = 0,002, NCT IOPcc: p = 0,000). Die CCT war ebenfalls bei SSc-Patienten signifikant dünner (p = 0,001). Bezüglich der CH und des CRF ergaben sich keine statistisch signifikanten Unterschiede. Die Differenz der korrigierten Parameter (CHkorr – CRFkorr) zeigte in beiden Gruppen eine negative Differenz, die im Gegensatz zur Kontrollgruppe (− 0,66) bei den Sklerodermiepatienten (− 0,83) leicht erniedrigt war. Es bestanden deutliche signifikante negative Korrelationen der CH- und CRF-Werte bzw. CHkorr- und CRFkorr-Werte bei SSc-Patienten. Dagegen zeigte sich in der Kontrollgruppe eine nicht signifikante positive Korrelation von Lebensalter und den biomechanischen Parametern.

Schlussfolgerung Zwischen den untersuchten Gruppen konnte keine Veränderung der biomechanischen Parameter (CH, CRF) festgestellt werden. Eine deutlich vorhandene signifikante negative Korrelation von Lebensalter und CH bzw. CRF bei SSc könnte durch eine leichte Degression der viskösen Komponente und Verringerung der kornealen Dämpfungskapazität bedingt sein. Die dünnere CCT und der erniedrigte Differenzwert lassen auf veränderliche Prozesse in der Zusammensetzung der kornealen Extrazellulärmatrix bei SSc-Patienten schließen.

Abstract

Introduction Our study compares the biomechanical properties of the cornea in patients with long-term pre-existing (for at least 10 years) systemic sclerosis (SSc) with those of healthy suspects.

Material/Methods The examination was performed in 14 systemic SSc patients and 38 healthy volunteers. Non-invasive assessment of corneal biomechanical parameters, including central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF), was performed in one randomised study eye in accordance with a standardised protocol. Intraocular pressure (IOP) values were analysed using different measuring techniques, including Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and Ocular Response Analyzer® (ORA)-based non-contact tonometry (NCT), GAT-correlated IOP (IOPgat) and CCT-compensated-IOP (IOPcc).

Results When measured with DCT and ORA-based NCT, IOP levels were significantly lower in SSc patients than in the control group (DCT IOP: p = 0.048, NCT IOPgat: p = 0.002, NCT IOPcc: p < 0.001). CCT was also significantly reduced in the SSc (p = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in CH and CRF. The difference between the corrected values (CHcorr – CRFcorr) was negative in the two groups. This was slightly lower for the SSc patients (delta = − 0.83) than for the control group (delta = − 0.66). For SSc patients, there were highly significant negative correlations between CH and CRF and between CHcorr and CRFcorr. In contrast, in the control group there was a non-significant positive correlation between age and biomechanical properties.

Conclusion In the course of the disease SSc leads to various alterations in connective tissue, which can also involve corneal tissue. CCT becomes significantly thinner and simultaneously partially loses elastic properties and gains viscosity. This accounts for reduced IOP values with dynamic contour tonometry as well as with ORA-tonometry (Goldmann-correlated IOP, CCT-compensated IOP). This distinct pre-existing significant negative correlation between age and CH and CRF values in patients with SSc could be due to slight regression of the viscous components and diminution of corneal damping capacity.

Schlüsselwörter

korneale Biomechanik - korneale Hysterese - kornealer Resistenzfaktor - Ocular Response Analyzer - systemische Sklerodermie

Key words

corneal hysteresis - corneal resistance factor - ocular response analyzer - corneal biochemical features - systemic sclerosis
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Mayes MD. Scleroderma epidemiology. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2003; 29: 239-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Chifflot H, Fautrel B, Sordet C. et al. Incidence and prevalence of systemic sclerosis: a systematic literature review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2008; 37: 223-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Abraham DJ, Varga J. Scleroderma: from cell and molecular mechanisms to disease models. Trends Immunol 2005; 26: 587-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Arnett FC, Cho M, Chatterjee S. et al. Familial occurrence frequencies and relative risks for systemic sclerosis (scleroderma) in three United States cohorts. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44: 1359-1362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Nietert PJ, Silver RM. Systemic sclerosis: environmental and occupational risk factors. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2000; 12: 520-526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Klein-Weigel P, Opitz C, Riemekasten G. Systemische Sklerose – eine systematische Übersicht. Vasa 2011; 40: 6-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sontheimer RD, Kovalchick P. Cutaneous manifestations of rheumatic diseases: lupus erythematosus, dermatomyositis, scleroderma. Dermatol Nurs 1998; 10: 81-95
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 de A F Gomes B, Santhiago MR, Magalhães P. et al. Ocular findings in patients with systemic sclerosis. Clinics 2011; 66: 379-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 de A F Gomes B, Santhiago MR, de Azevedo MN. et al. Evaluation of dry eye signs and symptoms in patients with systemic sclerosis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2012; 250: 1051-1056
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pezzutto A, Ulrichs T, Burmester GR. Taschenatlas der Immunologie: Grundlagen, Labor, Klinik. Stuttgart: Thieme; 1998: 204
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Jones WL, DeCanio jr. SM. Hypertensive retinopathy and generalized scleroderma. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1981; 58: 1138-1141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zulian F, Vallongo C, Woo P. et al. Localized scleroderma in childhood is not just a skin disease. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52: 2873-2881
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Abdou NI, Kullman GJ, Hoffman GS. et al. Wegenerʼs granulomatosis: survey of 701 patients in North America. Changes in outcome in the 1990s. J Rheumatol 2002; 29: 309-316
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hunder GG, Arend WP, Bloch DA. et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of vasculitis. Introduction. Arthritis Rheum 1990; 33: 1065-1067
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Allanore Y, Parc C, Monnet D. et al. Increased prevalence of ocular glaucomatous abnormalities in systemic sclerosis. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63: 1276-1278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31: 156-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 de A F Gomes B, Santhiago MR, Kara-Junior N. et al. Central corneal thickness in patients with systemic sclerosis: a controlled study. Cornea 2011; 30: 1125-1128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Serup L, Serup J, Hagdrup HK. Increased central cornea thickness in systemic sclerosis. Acta Ophthalmol 1984; 62: 69-74
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Emre S, Kaykçoğlu O, Ateş H. et al. Corneal hysteresis, corneal resistance factor, and intraocular pressure measurement in patients with scleroderma using the Reichert ocular response analyzer. Cornea 2010; 29: 628-631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Spörl E, Terai N, Haustein M. et al. [Biomechanical condition of the cornea as a new indicator for pathological and structural changes]. Ophthalmologe 2009; 106: 512-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45: 3118-3121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Schwenteck T, Knappe M, Moros I. [How does central cornea thickness influence intraocular pressure during applanation and contour tonometry?]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2012; 229: 917-927
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Viestenz A, Langenbucher A. [Reproducibility of dynamic contour tonometry. Comparison with TonoPenXL and Goldmann applanation tonometry – a clinical study on 323 normal eyes]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2006; 223: 813-819
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Dynamic contour tonometry: a comparative study on human cadaver eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 2004; 122: 1287-1293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Distler O. Scleroderma: Modern Aspects of Pathogenesis, Diagnosis and Therapy. Bremen: UNI-MED; 2009: 23-42
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Sticherling M. Systemic sclerosis – dermatological aspects. Part 1: Pathogenesis, epidemiology, clinical findings. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2012; 10: 705-716
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kleinert S, Tony HP, Kneitz C. [Systemic sclerosis]. Internist (Berl) 2006; 47: 1051-1061
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Generini S, Fiori G, Moggi Pignone A. et al. Systemic sclerosis. A clinical overview. Adv Exp Med Biol 1999; 455: 73-83
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Varga J, Abraham D. Systemic sclerosis: a prototypic multisystem fibrotic disorder. J Clin Invest 2007; 117: 557-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gharaee-Kermani M, Denholm EM, Phan SH. Costimulation of fibroblast collagen and transforming growth factor β1 gene expression by monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 via specific receptors. J Biol Chem 1996; 271: 17779-17784
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lekskul M, Aimpun P, Nawanopparatskul B. et al. The correlations between central corneal thickness and age, gender, intraocular pressure and refractive error of aged 12–60 years old in rural Thai community. J Med Assoc Thai 2005; 88 (Suppl. 03) S175-S179
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Hussein H, Lee P, Chau C. et al. The effect of male sex on survival in systemic sclerosis. J Rheumatol 2014; 41: 2193-2200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lee ES, Kim CY, Ha SJ. et al. Central corneal thickness of Korean patients with glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 927-930
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kamiya K, Hagishima M, Fujimura F. et al. Factors affecting corneal hysteresis in normal eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008; 246: 1491-1494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lim L, Gazzard G, Chan Y-H. et al. Cornea biomechanical characteristics and their correlates with refractive error in Singaporean children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 3852-3857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Schroeder B, Hager A, Kutschan A. et al. [Measurement of viscoelastic corneal parameter (corneal hysteresis) in patients with primary open angle glaucoma]. Ophthalmologe 2008; 105: 916-920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Cunliffe I. et al. The use of the Reichert ocular response analyser to establish the relationship between ocular hysteresis, corneal resistance factor and central corneal thickness in normal eyes. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2006; 29: 257-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Touboul D, Roberts C, Kérautret J. et al. Correlations between corneal hysteresis, intraocular pressure, and corneal central pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34: 616-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Feng Y, Varikooty J, Simpson TL. Diurnal variation of corneal and corneal epithelial thickness measured using optical coherence tomography. Cornea 2001; 20: 480-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Giuffre G, Di Rosa L, Fiorino F. et al. Variations in central corneal thickness during the menstrual cycle in women. Cornea 2007; 26: 144-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Uçakhan ÖÖ, Gesoğlu P, Özkan M. et al. Corneal elevation and thickness in relation to the refractive status measured with the Pentacam Scheimpflug system. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34: 1900-1905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry compared with applanation tonometry in human cadaver eyes of different hydration states. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005; 243: 359-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Rüfer F, Schröder A, Bader C. et al. Age-related changes in central and peripheral corneal thickness: determination of normal values with the Orbscan II topography system. Cornea 2007; 26: 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Müller A, Craig JP, Grupcheva CN. et al. The effects of corneal parameters on the assessment of endothelial cell density in the elderly eye. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88: 325-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Pfeiffer N, Torri V, Miglior S. et al. Central corneal thickness in the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 454-459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Detry-Morel M, Jamart J, Hautenauven F. et al. Comparison of the corneal biomechanical properties with the Ocular Response Analyzer® (ORA) in African and Caucasian normal subjects and patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol 2012; 90: 118-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Erb C, Gast U, Schremmer D. German register for glaucoma patients with dry eye. I. Basic outcome with respect to dry eye. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008; 246: 1593-1601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Elsheikh A, Wang D, Brown M. et al. Assessment of corneal biomechanical properties and their variation with age. Curr Eye Res 2007; 32: 11-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Kida T, Liu HK, Weinreb RN. Effects of aging on corneal biomechanical properties and their impact on 24-hour measurement of intraocular pressure. Am J Ophthalmol 2008; 146: 567-572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Moreno-Montanes J, Maldonado MJ, Garcia N. et al. Reproducibility and clinical relevance of the ocular response analyzer in nonoperated eyes: corneal biomechanical and tonometric implications. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 968-974
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Dombi GW, Haut RC, Sullivan WG. Correlation of high-speed tensile strength with collagen content in control and lathyritic rat skin. J Surg Res 1993; 54: 21-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Kurita Y, Kempf R, Iida Y. et al. Contact-based stiffness sensing of human eye. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2008; 55: 739-745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Suzuki S, Suzuki Y, Iwase A. et al. Corneal thickness in an ophthalmologically normal Japanese population. Ophthalmology 2005; 112: 1327-1336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Bhan A, Browning AC, Shah S. et al. Effect of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurements with the pneumotonometer, Goldmann applanation tonometer, and Tono-Pen. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002; 43: 1389-1392
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Hager A, Wiegand W. [Methods of measuring intraocular pressure independently of central corneal thickness]. Ophthalmologe 2008; 105: 840-844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Wells AP, Garway-Heath DF, Poostchi A. et al. Corneal hysteresis but not corneal thickness correlates with optic nerve surface compliance in glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 3262-3268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Congdon NG, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K. et al. Central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis associated with glaucoma damage. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 141: 868-875
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Mantry S. et al. Ocular response analyser to assess hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in low tension, open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008; 36: 508-513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Pepose JS, Feigenbaum SK, Qazi MA. et al. Changes in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic, and noncontact tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 143: 39-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar