Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 10, 2026
Trabecular Meshwork Response to Pressure Elevation in the Living Human Eye
Published on: June 20, 2015
Keratoconus cone location influences ocular biomechanical parameters measured by the Ocular Response Analyzer
Phillip T Yuhas1, Maddison M Fortman1, Ashraf M Mahmoud2
1College of Optometry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Background:
Keratoconus is characterized by asymmetry in the biomechanical properties of the cornea, with focal weakness in the area of cone formation. We tested the hypothesis that centrally-measured biomechanical parameters differ between corneas with peripheral cones and corneas with central cones.
Methods:
Fifty participants with keratoconus were prospectively recruited. The mean ± standard deviation age was 38 ± 13 years. Axial and tangential corneal topography were analyzed in both eyes, if eligible. Cones in the central 3 mm of the cornea were considered central, and cones outside the central 3 mm were considered peripheral. Each eye was then measured with the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) tonometer. T-tests compared differences in ORA-generated waveform parameters between cohorts.
Results:
Seventy-eight eyes were analyzed. According to the axial topography maps, 37 eyes had central cones and 41 eyes had peripheral cones. According to the tangential topography maps, 53 eyes had central cones, and 25 eyes had peripheral cones. For the axial-topography algorithm, wave score (WS) was significantly higher in peripheral cones than central cones (inter-cohort difference = 1.27 ± 1.87). Peripheral cones had a significantly higher area of first peak, p1area (1047 ± 1346), area of second peak, p2area (1130 ± 1478), height of first peak, h1 (102 ± 147), and height of second peak, h2 (102 ± 127), than central cones. Corneal hysteresis (CH), width of the first peak, w1, and width of the second peak, w2, did not significantly differ between cohorts. There were similar results for the tangential-topography algorithm, with a significant difference between the cohorts for p1area (855 ± 1389), p2area (860 ± 1531), h1 (81.7 ± 151), and h2 (92.1 ± 131).
Conclusions:
Cone location affects the biomechanical response parameters measured under central loading of the cornea. The ORA delivers its air puff to the central cornea, so the fact that h1 and h2 and that p1area and p2area were smaller in the central cone cohort than in the peripheral cone cohort suggests that corneas with central cones are softer or more compliant centrally than corneas with peripheral cones, which is consistent with the location of the pathology. This result is evidence that corneal weakening in keratoconus is focal in nature and is consistent with localized disruption of lamellar orientation.
