Corneal biomechanical properties have garnered significant interest in their relation to the development of ectatic corneal disease. Alongside the advent of corneal tomography and Scheimpflug imaging such as Pentacam and Galilei, there have been advances in assessing the cornea based on its biomechanical characteristics. Though the aforementioned imaging systems are highly capable of identifying morphologic abnormalities, they cannot assess mechanical stability of the cornea. This article, in contrast to Parts I and II of this article series, will focus on in vivo corneal biomechanical imaging systems. The two most readily available commercial systems include the Corvis ST and the Ocular Response Analyzer. Both of these systems aimed to characterize corneal biomechanics via distinct measurements. While in Parts I and II of this article series the authors focused on elevation, pachymetric, and keratometric data, the purpose of this article was to summarize biomechanical parameters and their clinical use in screening refractive surgery candidates. Moreover, this article explores biomechanical decompensation and its role in the development of corneal ectasia and keratoconus. There is a focus on the diagnostic accuracy of biomechanical indices in the identification of diseases such as keratoconus that may preclude a patient from undergoing refractive surgery.
Keywords: Corneal Biomechanics; Corvis; Ectasia; Galilei; Keratoconus; Pentacam; Refractive Surgery.
© 2019, Author(s).