Non-invasive Measurement of the Viscoelasticity of the Optic Nerve and Sclera for Assessing Papilledema: A Pilot Clinical Study.
Intracranial hypertension
Optic nerve
Papilledema
Sclera
Shear wave speed
Ultrasound vibro-elastography
Journal
Ultrasound in medicine & biology
ISSN: 1879-291X
Titre abrégé: Ultrasound Med Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0410553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2023
10 2023
Historique:
received:
30
05
2023
revised:
06
07
2023
accepted:
09
07
2023
pmc-release:
01
10
2024
medline:
21
8
2023
pubmed:
31
7
2023
entrez:
30
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to evaluate our novel ultrasound vibro-elastography (UVE) technique for assessing patients with papilledema by non-invasively measuring shear wave speed (SWS), elasticity and viscosity properties of the optic nerve and sclera. Shear wave speeds were measured at three frequencies-100, 150 and 200 Hz-on the optic nerve and sclera tissues for assessing patients with papilledema resulting from idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). The method was evaluated in six papilledema patients and six controls on two separate locations for each participant (i.e., optic nerve and posterior sclera). SWSs of the optic nerve and sclera were analyzed by using a 2-D speed map technique within a circular region of interest (ROI) (i.e., the diameter of the ROI was 1.5 mm × 3.0 mm at the optic nerve and sclera, respectively). Elasticity and viscosity were then analyzed using the wave speed dispersion over the three frequencies. We measured values of SWS at both locations, optic nerve and sclera, of the right eye and left eye at three different frequencies in IIH patients and controls. The SWS (mean ± standard deviation [m/s]) of the right eye was significantly higher at the sclera in IIH patients compared with controls (i.e., patients vs. controls: 5.91 ± 0.54 vs. 3.86 ± 0.56, p < 0.0001 at 100 Hz), but there was no significant difference at the optic nerve (i.e., patients vs. controls: 3.62 ± 0.39 vs. 3.36 ± 0.35, p = 0.1100 at 100Hz). We observed increased elasticity (kPa) in IIH patients, indicating there are significant differences in elasticity between patients and controls at the optic nerve and sclera (i.e., right eye [patients vs. controls]: 14.42 ± 6.59 vs. 6.5 ± 5.71, p = 0.0065 [optic nerve]; 33.04 ± 10.62 vs. 9.16 ± 7.15, p < 0.0001 [sclera]). Viscosity was also (Pa·s) higher in the sclera and optic nerve of the left eye (i.e., left eye [patient vs. control]: 8.89 ± 4.37 vs. 7.27 ± 5.01, p = 0.3790 (optic nerve); 16.05 ± 10.79 vs. 8.49 ± 6.09, p < 0.0194 [sclera]). This research illustrates the feasibility of using our UVE system to evaluate stiffness of different tissues in the eye non-invasively. It suggests that the viscoelasticity of the posterior sclera is higher than that of the optic nerve. We found that the posterior sclera is stiffer than the optic nerve in patients with papilledema resulting from IIH, making UVE a potential non-invasive technique for assessing papilledema.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37517885
pii: S0301-5629(23)00219-3
doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2023.07.006
pmc: PMC10529623
mid: NIHMS1921445
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2227-2233Subventions
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : R01 EY031301
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Références
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Jun;11(6):798-808
pubmed: 28823737
Ultrasonics. 2020 Sep;107:106170
pubmed: 32417695
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2017 Jan;64(1):164-176
pubmed: 28092508
J Biomech. 2019 Oct 11;95:109307
pubmed: 31431344
Exp Eye Res. 2020 Apr;193:107978
pubmed: 32081667
Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2014 Winter;54(1):1-11
pubmed: 24296367
Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 11;7(1):5076
pubmed: 28698632
Sci Rep. 2021 May 17;11(1):10420
pubmed: 34001934
J Tissue Viability. 2022 May;31(2):245-254
pubmed: 35236613
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020 Mar;103:103570
pubmed: 32090962
Ultrasonics. 2021 Feb;110:106263
pubmed: 33065466
Ultrasonics. 2016 Sep;71:183-188
pubmed: 27392204
Sci Rep. 2022 May 24;12(1):8776
pubmed: 35610503
J Hepatol. 2015 Feb;62(2):317-24
pubmed: 25251998
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2023 Feb;138:105575
pubmed: 36470112
Ultrasonics. 2021 Feb;110:106239
pubmed: 32942089
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2021 Feb;47(2):288-295
pubmed: 33234327
Sci Rep. 2021 Nov 24;11(1):22812
pubmed: 34819579
Surv Ophthalmol. 2022 Jul-Aug;67(4):1135-1159
pubmed: 34813854
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2022 Aug;48(8):1672-1680
pubmed: 35672199
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022 Dec;219(6):940-951
pubmed: 35822642
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006 Feb;32(2):211-9
pubmed: 16464667
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2021 Mar;47(3):408-427
pubmed: 33342618
Ultrasonics. 2011 Feb;51(2):157-64
pubmed: 20800256
Anesth Analg. 2012 Jul;115(1):194-201
pubmed: 22504211
J Glaucoma. 2021 Oct 1;30(10):932-940
pubmed: 34127628
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2012 Mar;38(3):511-23
pubmed: 22266232
J Biomech. 2010 May 28;43(8):1540-5
pubmed: 20189571
Can J Neurol Sci. 2022 Mar;49(2):278-281
pubmed: 33888167
J Glaucoma. 2017 Nov;26(11):967-973
pubmed: 28858155
J Acoust Soc Am. 2022 Apr;151(4):2403
pubmed: 35461517
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2021 Aug;47(8):2128-2137
pubmed: 33985827
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2019 Aug;45(8):2034-2039
pubmed: 31122813
J Hepatol. 2015 May;62(5):1068-75
pubmed: 25514554
Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 29;10(1):7213
pubmed: 32350349
Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 20;7:41216
pubmed: 28106134
Prog Retin Eye Res. 2016 Jan;50:108-44
pubmed: 26453995
Ophthalmology. 2017 May;124(5):697-700
pubmed: 28187976
Neurology. 1992 Mar;42(3 Pt 1):676-8
pubmed: 1549237