Structural and Biomechanical Corneal Differences between Type 2 Diabetic and Nondiabetic Patients

Table 5

Review of literature comparing corneal biomechanics obtained by ORA in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.

Study (year)

Nr of patients (eyes)

Glaucoma

Age (y)

Female (n)

DM diagn. duration

DR stage

HbA1c (%)

CCT (μm), US

IOPcc (mmHg)

CH (mmHg)

CRF (mmHg)

Goldich et al. [11] (2008)

Cont.

40 (40)

No

64 ± 9

19 (48%)

Interview

n.r.

n.r.

530.3 ± 35.9

17.7 ± 4.9

9.3 ± 1.4

9.6 ± 1.6

DM

40 (40)

61 ± 12

17 (43%)

Duration n.r.

548.7 ± 33.0

16.6 ± 4.4

10.7 ± 1.6

10.9 ± 1.7

Hager et al. [12]^a (2009)

Cont.

195 (385)

26%

65 ± 16

206 (58%)^f

Interview

Most patientsDR

n.r.

542.0 ± 40.0^d

n.r.

10.4 ± 1.9

n.r.

DM

50 (99)

20%

70 ± 11

42 (42%)^f

13 ± 9 y

554.0 ± 50.0^d

10.7 ± 1.7

Sahin et al. [16]^b (2009)

Cont.

61 (120)

No

53 ± 10

33 (54%)

Interview

n.r.

n.r.

535.5 ± 39.2

15.8 ± 3.2

10.4 ± 1.7

10.4 ± 2.0

DM

43 (81)

55 ± 12

26 (60%)

14 ± 6 y

7.3 ± 1.5

550.1 ± 40.8

18.8 ± 4.7

9.5 ± 1.8

10.3 ± 1.8

Kotecha et al. [10] (2010)

Cont.

123 (123)

No

54 ± 16

n.r.

Interview

n.r.

n.r.

550.1 ± 32.8

15.9 ± 2.7^e

10.8 ± 1.7

10.6 ± 1.6

DM 1

13 (13)

42 ± 11

18 (30%)

24 ± 15 y

7.3 ± 0.6

551.1 ± 27.2

15.4 ± 2.5^e

12.4 ± 1.7

12.5 ± 2.0

DM 2

48 (48)

62 ± 11

12 ± 10 y

7.2 ± 1.4

550.0 ± 40.9

16.2 ± 2.5^e

10.9 ± 1.9

11.5 ± 2.1

Castro et al. [13] (2010)

Cont.

25 (40)

Yes

66 ± 15

16 (64%)

Interview

No DR

n.r.

546.6 ± 37.3

n.r.

7.8 ± 1.7

n.r.

DM 2

19 (34)

67 ± 9

14 (74%)

Duration n.r.

531.7 ± 31.3

9.1 ± 1.9

Scheler et al. [14]^c (2012)

Cont.

35 (35)

No

61 ± n.r

24 (69%)

Guidelines

n.r.

5.4 ± 0.5

n.r.

n.r.

10.7 ± 1.8

10.6 ± 2.2 n.r.

DM < 7%

14 (14)

66 ± n.r

14 (45%)

Duration n.r

6.0 ± 0.8

n.r.

12.2 ± 2.1

DM ≥ 7%

17 (17)

8.6 ± 2.4

11.2 ± 2.1

Celik et al. [15] (2014)

Cont.

74 (74)

No

58 ± 10

50 (68%)

Guidelines

All DR stages

5.2 ± 0.6

551.4 ± 3.1

16.6 ± 0.4

9.0 ± 0.2

9.0 ± 0.2

DM 2 < 7%

74 (74)

58 ± 10

40 (54%)

Duration n.r.

6.3 ± 0.3

543.0 ± 3.2

17.1 ± 0.4

9.8 ± 0.2

10.1 ± 0.2

DM 2 ≥ 7%

82 (82)

58 ± 9

56 (68%)

9.9 ± 1.5

566.4 ± 3.0

18.2 ± 0.3

10.9 ± 0.2

11.9 ± 0.2

Pérez-Rico et al. [17] (2015)

Cont.

41 (41)

No

61 ± 9

31 (76%)

Guidelines

n.r.

5.2 ± 0.6

516.1 ± 34.0

14.6 ± 3.7

11.4 ± 1.7

10.5 ± 1.8

DM 2 < 7%

40 (40)

62 ± 10

23 (58%)

12 ± 9 y

6.3 ± 0.3

561.3 ± 34.7

14.7 ± 2.7

10.9 ± 1.4

11.2 ± 2.0

DM 2 ≥ 7%

54 (54)

60 ± 13

32 (59%)

15 ± 11 y

9.9 ± 1.5

565.2 ± 38.6

18.4 ± 3.8

10.2 ± 1.8

11.1 ± 2.0

Schweitzer et al. [18] (2016)

Cont.

695 (695)

No

>74^g,h

-^g

Guidelines

n.r.

n.r.

548.9 ± n.r.

-^g

9.3 ± n.r.

9.6 ± n.r.

DM 2

137 (137)

Duration n.r

558.2 ± n.r.

9.8 ± n.r.

10.4 ± n.r.

Bekmez and Kocaturk [19] (2018)

Cont.

50 (50)

No

62 ± 12

26 (52%)

—

—

—

—

16.0 ± 3.1

10.5 ± 1.7

10.5 ± 1.7

DM 2

50 (50)

63 ± 9

25 (50%)

17.8 ± 3.6

9.9 ± 1.5

10.4 ± 1.6

Kara et al. [26] (2013)

Cont.

50 (50)

No

15 ± 2

31 (62%)

Guidelines

No DR

n.r.

559.0 ± 22.0

15.1 ± 2.7

12.5 ± 1.5

11.9 ± 1.5

DM 1

46 (46)

14 ± 2

26 (57%)

6 ± 3 y

10.4 ± 2.4

555.0 ± 26.0

15.5 ± 3.4

12.3 ± 1.3

12.4 ± 1.7

Nalcacioglu-Yuksekkaya et al. [27] (2014)

Cont.

74 (74)

No

13 ± 3

48 (65%)

Guidelines

No DR

n.r.

n.r.

15.3 ± 3.4

10.7 ± 1.7

10.5 ± 1.6

DM 1

68 (68)

13 ± 3

34 (50%)

5 ± 3 y

8.3 ± 2.0

15.8 ± 3.0

10.8 ± 1.5

10.9 ± 1.9

Statistical significant difference at . CCT, central corneal thickness; diagn., diagnosis; DR, diabetic retinopathy; SD, standard deviation; US, ultrasound paquimetry; y, years; mmHg, millimeters of mercury. ^aRetrospective study. ^bThe study included 22 type 1 DM and 21 type 2 DM patients. ^cThe study included 3 type 1 DM and 28 type 2 DM patients. ^dCCT was measured with Orbscan; ^eIOPcc was not reported, and the values of IOP were measured with a dynamic contour tonometer. ^fNumber of eyes included in the study. ^gCCT, CH, and CRF values were adjusted for age, sex, and IOP; ^hMean age was comparable between groups; ⁱValues are reported as mean ± standard error.