You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Ophthalmology
Unilateral posterior scleral defect was not associated with altered ocular biomechanics
  1. Joshua Oskam1 and
  2. Jesse Gale1,2
  1. 1 Ophthalmology, Wellington Regional Hospital, Wellington South, New Zealand
  2. 2 Department of Surgery & Anaesthesia, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jesse Gale; jesse.gale{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Technologies that describe the biomechanics of the eye are of emerging importance in glaucoma and keratoconus. A defect in the wall of the eye would be expected to affect biomechanics, resulting in the dispersion of mechanical energy and more viscous rather than elastic behaviour. Here, a mildly myopic man in his 50s was noted to have a deep conduit beside the right optic disc which appeared to pass posteriorly to the optic nerve sheath or orbit. We assessed the intraocular pressure and ocular biomechanics with several methods, and compared them with the normal fellow eye. Corneal hysteresis, ocular pulse amplitude, deformation amplitude, changes in pressure with standing and lying and response to water-drinking test were all very similar between the two eyes. In this case with a unilateral posterior scleral defect, current clinical techniques to assess ocular biomechanics did not detect an asymmetry.

  • Glaucoma
  • Anterior chamber

https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2024-263262

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors The following authors were responsible for drafting of the text, sourcing and editing of clinical images, investigation results, drawing original diagrams and algorithms and critical revision for important intellectual content: JG and JO. JG is the guarantor.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Case reports provide a valuable learning resource for the scientific community and can indicate areas of interest for future research. They should not be used in isolation to guide treatment choices or public health policy.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.