Bernardo T Lopes

Dr. Bernardo T Lopes

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 November 2018 in American Journal of Ophthalmology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BLBernardo T Lopes
Bernardo T Lopes
IRIsaac C. Ramos
Isaac C. Ramos
MSMarcella Q. Salomão
Marcella Q. Salomão
FGFrederico P. Guerra
Frederico P. Guerra
SSSteve C. Schallhorn
Steve C. Schallhorn
RARENATO AMBROSIO
RENATO AMBROSIO

1 January 2019 in American Journal of Ophthalmology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JFJosé Ferreira-Mendes
José Ferreira-Mendes
BLBernardo T Lopes
Bernardo T Lopes
FFFernando Faria-Correia
Fernando Faria-Correia
MSMarcella Q. Salomão
Marcella Q. Salomão
SRSandra Rodrigues-Barros
Sandra Rodrigues-Barros
RARENATO AMBROSIO
RENATO AMBROSIO

1 January 2017 in Journal of Ophthalmology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BLBernardo T Lopes
Bernardo T Lopes
CRCynthia J. Roberts
Cynthia J. Roberts
Ahmed ElsheikhAhmed Elsheikh
Ahmed Elsheikh
Riccardo VinciguerraRiccardo Vinciguerra
Riccardo Vinciguerra
PVPaolo Vinciguerra
Paolo Vinciguerra
RARENATO AMBROSIO
RENATO AMBROSIO
Purpose. To assess the repeatability and reproducibility of dynamic corneal response parameters measured by the Corvis ST (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany). Methods. One eye randomly selected from 32 healthy volunteers was examined by the Corvis ST. Three different devices were used in an alternated random order for taking three measurements at each device in each subject. Standard intraocular pressure (IOP), the biomechanical-compensated IOP (bIOP), and DCR parameters were evaluated. The within-subject standard deviation (ζw) and coefficient of variation (CV) were assessed. Results. Regarding pressure indices, the ζw was below 1 mmHg for repeatability (0.98 for IOP and 0.89 for bIOP) and the CV was 6.6% for IOP and 6.1% for bIOP. For reproducibility, the ζw was around 1 mmHg (1.12 for IOP and 1.05 for bIOP) and the CV was 7.6% for IOP and 7.1% for bIOP. Most of DCR indices presented CV for repeatability below 4%. For reproducibility, the CV of most of the indices were below 6%. The deformation amplitude (DA) ratio in 1 mm and integrated radius were below 4% (1.2% and 3.8%, resp.). Conclusions. The Corvis ST showed good precision (repeatability and reproducibility) for IOP measurements and for DCR in healthy eyes.

1 June 2016 in Zeitschrift für Medizinische Physik
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BLBernardo T Lopes
Bernardo T Lopes
IRIsaac C. Ramos
Isaac C. Ramos
DDDaniel G. Dawson
Daniel G. Dawson
MBMichael W. Belin
Michael W. Belin
RARenato Ambrósio
Renato Ambrósio

MSMarcella Salomao
Marcella Salomao
AHAna Luisa Hofling-Lima
Ana Luisa Hofling-Lima
LELouise Pellegrino Gomes Esporcatte
Louise Pellegrino Gomes Esporcatte
BLBernardo T Lopes
Bernardo T Lopes
Riccardo VinciguerraRiccardo Vinciguerra
Riccardo Vinciguerra
RARENATO AMBROSIO
RENATO AMBROSIO
Purpose: To review the role of corneal biomechanics for the clinical evaluation of patients with ectatic corneal diseases. Methods: A total of 1295 eyes were included for analysis in this study. The normal healthy group (group N) included one eye randomly selected from 736 patients with healthy corneas, the keratoconus group (group KC) included one eye randomly selected from 321 patients with keratoconus. The 113 nonoperated ectatic eyes from 125 patients with very asymmetric ectasia (group VAE-E), whose fellow eyes presented relatively normal topography (group VAE-NT), were also included. The parameters from corneal tomography and biomechanics were obtained using the Pentacam HR and Corvis ST (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany). The accuracies of the tested variables for distinguishing all cases (KC, VAE-E, and VAE-NT), for detecting clinical ectasia (KC + VAE-E) and for identifying abnormalities among the VAE-NT, were investigated. A comparison was performed considering the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC; DeLong’s method). Results: Considering all cases (KC, VAE-E, and VAE-NT), the AUC of the tomographic-biomechanical parameter (TBI) was 0.992, which was statistically higher than all individual parameters (DeLong’s; p < 0.05): PRFI- Pentacam Random Forest Index (0.982), BAD-D- Belin -Ambrosio D value (0.959), CBI -corneal biomechanical index (0.91), and IS Abs- Inferior-superior value (0.91). The AUC of the TBI for detecting clinical ectasia (KC + VAE-E) was 0.999, and this was again statistically higher than all parameters (DeLong’s; p < 0.05): PRFI (0.996), BAD-D (0.995), CBI (0.949), and IS Abs (0.977). Considering the VAE-NT group, the AUC of the TBI was 0.966, which was also statistically higher than all parameters (DeLong’s; p < 0.05): PRFI (0.934), BAD- D (0.834), CBI (0.774), and IS Abs (0.677). Conclusions: Corneal biomechanical data enhances the evaluation of patients with corneal ectasia and meaningfully adds to the multimodal diagnostic armamentarium. The integration of biomechanical data and corneal tomography with artificial intelligence data augments the sensitivity and specificity for screening and enhancing early diagnosis. Besides, corneal biomechanics may be relevant for determining the prognosis and staging the disease.

3 November 2023 in Eye and Vision
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RARENATO AMBROSIO
RENATO AMBROSIO
MSMarcella Salomao
Marcella Salomao
LBLorena Barros
Lorena Barros
JFJoão Batista R. da Fonseca Filho
João Batista R. da Fonseca Filho
JGJaime Guedes
Jaime Guedes
LELouise Pellegrino Gomes Esporcatte
Louise Pellegrino Gomes Esporcatte
Different diagnostic approaches for ectatic corneal diseases (ECD) include screening, diagnosis confirmation, classification of the ECD type, severity staging, prognostic evaluation, and clinical follow-up. The comprehensive assessment must start with a directed clinical history. However, multimodal imaging tools, including Placido-disk topography, Scheimpflug three-dimensional (3D) tomography, corneal biomechanical evaluations, and layered (or segmental) tomography with epithelial thickness by optical coherence tomography (OCT), or digital very high-frequency ultrasound (dVHF-US) serve as fundamental complementary exams for measuring different characteristics of the cornea. Also, ocular wavefront analysis, axial length measurements, corneal specular or confocal microscopy, and genetic or molecular biology tests are relevant for clinical decisions. Artificial intelligence enhances interpretation and enables combining such a plethora of data, boosting accuracy and facilitating clinical decisions. The applications of diagnostic information for individualized treatments became relevant concerning the therapeutic refractive procedures that emerged as alternatives to keratoplasty. The first paradigm shift concerns the surgical management of patients with ECD with different techniques, such as crosslinking and intrastromal corneal ring segments. A second paradigm shift involved the quest for identifying patients at higher risk of progressive iatrogenic ectasia after elective refractive corrections on the cornea. Beyond augmenting the sensitivity to detect very mild (subclinical or fruste) forms of ECD, ectasia risk assessment evolved to characterize the inherent susceptibility for ectasia development and progression. Furthermore, ectasia risk is also related to environmental factors, including eye rubbing and the relational impact of the surgical procedure on the cornea.