Corneal Biomechanics Differences Between Chinese and Caucasian Healthy Subjects

Riccardo Vinciguerra; Robert Herber; Yan Wang; Fengju Zhang; Xingtao Zhou; Ji Bai; Keming Yu; Shihao Chen; Xuejun Fang; Frederik Raiskup; Paolo Vinciguerra

doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.834663

Corneal Biomechanics Differences Between Chinese and Caucasian Healthy Subjects

Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Feb 25:9:834663. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.834663. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Riccardo Vinciguerra¹, Robert Herber², Yan Wang^{3

4}, Fengju Zhang⁵, Xingtao Zhou⁶, Ji Bai⁷, Keming Yu⁸, Shihao Chen⁹, Xuejun Fang¹⁰, Frederik Raiskup², Paolo Vinciguerra^{11

12}

Affiliations

¹ Humanitas San Pio X Hospital, Milan, Italy.
² Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.
³ Tianjin Eye Hospital, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Nankai University Affiliated Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China.
⁴ Clinical College of Ophthalmology, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
⁵ Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Beijing Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Key Lab, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
⁶ EYE & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
⁷ BAI JI Ophthalmology, Chongqing, China.
⁸ Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
⁹ Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Zhejiang, China.
¹⁰ Shenyang Aier Eye Hospital, Shenyang, China.
¹¹ Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
¹² IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the difference between Caucasian and Chinese healthy subjects with regards to Corvis ST dynamic corneal response parameters (DCRs).

Methods: Two thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine healthy Caucasian and Chinese subjects were included in this multicenter retrospective study. Subsequently, Chinese eyes were matched to Caucasians by age, intraocular pressure (IOP), and Corneal Thickness (CCT) using a case-control matching algorithm. The DCRs assessed were Deformation Amplitude (DA) Applanation 1 velocity (A1v), integrated radius (1/R), deformation amplitude ratio (DAratio), stiffness parameter at applanation 1 (SPA1), ARTh (Ambrósio's Relational Thickness to the horizontal profile), and the novel Stress Strain Index (SSI).

Results: After age-, CCT-, and IOP- matching, 503 Chinese were assigned to 452 Caucasians participants. Statistical analysis showed a statistical significant difference between Chinese and Caucasian Healthy subjects in the values of SPA1 (p = 0.008), Arth (p = 0.008), and SSI (p < 0.001). Conversely, DA, A1v, DAratio, and 1/R were not significantly different between the two ethnical groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: We found significant differences in the values of the DCRs provided by the Corvis ST between Chinese and Caucasian healthy subjects.

Keywords: CBI; IOP (intraocular pressure); biomechanics; cornea; keratoconus.