Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Corneal Biomechanics Differences Between Chinese and Caucasian Healthy Subjects
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Corneal Biomechanics Differences Between Chinese and Caucasian Healthy Subjects
Do you wish to request the book?
Corneal Biomechanics Differences Between Chinese and Caucasian Healthy Subjects
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Corneal Biomechanics Differences Between Chinese and Caucasian Healthy Subjects
2022
Overview
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).
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).
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 (
= 0.008), Arth (
= 0.008), and SSI (
< 0.001). Conversely, DA, A1v, DAratio, and 1/R were not significantly different between the two ethnical groups (
> 0.05).
We found significant differences in the values of the DCRs provided by the Corvis ST between Chinese and Caucasian healthy subjects.
Publisher
Frontiers Media S.A
Subject
