<strong>ARVO</strong> 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts by Scientific Section/Group - <strong>Cornea</strong>values parallelto failure of corneal hydration. It was found that duration andmetabolic control ofdiabetes did not change the biomechanical properties of cornea.Commercial Relationships: Faruk Ozturk, None; Serkan Akkaya,None; Ertugrul Can, NoneProgram Number: 1641 Poster Board Number: D0276Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMCollagen Macrostructure and <strong>Cornea</strong>l Shape: Lessons fromDifferent SpeciesMoritz Winkler 1 , Yilu Xie 2 , Tiffany Yuen 1 , Golroxan Shoa 1 , RobertHueter 3 , Kathy K. Svoboda 4 , Christopher J. Murphy 5 , Donald J.Brown 2 , James V. Jester 2, 1 . 1 Biomedical Engineering, University ofCalifornia, Irvine, Irvine, CA; 2 Gavin Herbert Eye Institute,University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA; 3 Mote MarineLaboratory, Sarasota, FL; 4 Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M HealthScience Center, Dallas, TX; 5 Department of Surgical andRadiological Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.Purpose: The cornea plays a critical role both as a protective windowto the eye and as a refractive lens. In aquatic vertebrates, it provideslittle refractive power, while in terrestrial vertebrates corneal shapeneeds to be precisely controlled to project a focused image on theretina. Little is known about the changes in the structuralorganization of corneal collagen during evolution. The purpose ofthis study was to begin to characterize the macrostructuralorganization of corneal collagen in divergent species in order touncover basic mechanisms controlling corneal shape.Methods: Eyes from various species (fish, shark, birds, mammals)were fixed under pressure using paraformaldehyde to control postmortemswelling. Serial full-width (limbus to limbus) cross-sections(250μm thick) were cut using a vibratome. Sections were imagedusing nonlinear optical high resolution macroscopy (NLO-HRMac)of second harmonic generated (SHG) signals. 3-D images wererendered using Amira software, and collagen fiber structures werequantified with custom-written ImageJ macros.Results: In aquatic vertebrates stromal collagen macrostructureconsisted of simplified layers (stacks) of fibers that extended fromlimbus to limbus as continuous sheets of collagen, much like‘plywood’ in construction. Adjacent sheets were rotated 87°, formingorthogonal plies, with successive layers showing a continual rotationof over 360°. In birds collagen sheets were organized into distinctfibers with a uniform branching and fusing pattern similar to that ofchicken wire and presented a honeycomb appearance. Fibers in thesame plane appeared to extend from limbus to limbus, and successivelayers showed a 270° rotation through 2/3 stromal depth, very similaryet distinct from fish and shark. By contrast, collagen fiberorganization in mammals was irregular with varying degrees ofbranching depending on the species (human > dog > cat > rabbit).Mammals also lacked orthogonal rotational, nor were fibersconstrained to extend from limbus to limbus within the same plane.Conclusions: We have previously shown in the human cornea thatcollagen fiber branching and interconnectivity is associated withtissue rigidity. In this study, fiber branching was detected in corneasfrom terrestrial vertebrates suggesting that branching and increasedcorneal rigidity may play a role in the evolutionary adaptation of thecornea from a protective window to a refractive lens.Commercial Relationships: Moritz Winkler, None; Yilu Xie,None; Tiffany Yuen, None; Golroxan Shoa, None; Robert Hueter,None; Kathy K. Svoboda, None; Christopher J. Murphy, OcularServices On Demand (I), Ocular Services On Demand (C), PlatypusTechnologies LLC (I), Imbed LLC (I), EyeKor LLC (I), Allergan(C), Genentech (C), Sarcode (C), Covance (C); Donald J. Brown,None; James V. Jester, NoneSupport: NIH Grant EY018665, Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc.,Discovery Eye Foundation, and the Skirball Program in MolecularOphthalmologyProgram Number: 1642 Poster Board Number: D0277Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMInter- and Intra-Lamellar Slippage of Collagen Fibrils as aPotential Mechanism of Keratoconus ProgressionMichael Koster 1 , Craig Boote 2 , Keith M. Meek 2 , Priscilla G. Fowler 3 ,Christopher A. Girkin 3 , Guenther Meschke 1 , Rafael Grytz 3 . 1 Instituefor Structural Mechanics, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum,Germany; 2 School of Optometry and Vision Sciences, CardiffUniversity, Cardiff, United Kingdom; 3 Ophthalmology, University ofAlabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.Purpose: To assess if inter- and intra-lamellar slippage of collagenfibrils may lead to progressive cone formation in keratoconus.Methods: A generic finite element model of the human eye wasgenerated that incorporates the micro-architecture of collagen fibrilsin the corneo-scleral shell. Inter- and intra-lamellar slippage wassimulated through residual strains of collagen fibrils using amicrostructure-based constitutive formulation. Progressive inter- andintra-lamellar slippage was imposed to an eccentric, 4-mm-diameterarea of the cornea while the model was subjected to normal IOP (15mmHg). Topographic results were compared to clinical observationof a keratoconus patient with an eccentric cone.Results: Increasing inter- and intra-lamellar slippage led toprogressive cone formation of the cornea. The results were in goodagreement with topographic observation of keratoconus patients witheccentric cone.Conclusions: The numerical results support the assumption thatinter- and intra-lamellar slippage of collagen fibrils may be theunderlying mechanism that leads to progressive cone formation inkeratoconus.Numerical simulation of keratoconus progression showing thedevelopment of an eccentric cone due to inter- and intra-lamellarslippage of corneal collagen fibrils.Commercial Relationships: Michael Koster, None; Craig Boote,None; Keith M. Meek, None; Priscilla G. Fowler, None;Christopher A. Girkin, SOLX (F), Heidelberg Engineering (F);Guenther Meschke, None; Rafael Grytz, NoneSupport: EyeSight Foundation of Alabama; Research to PreventBlindness Physician-Scientist AwardProgram Number: 1643 Poster Board Number: D0278Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMClear <strong>Cornea</strong>l Incision: Sealability of the Manual Versus LensARlaser generated Full Thickness Incision©2013, Copyright by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc., all rights reserved. Go to iovs.org to access the version of record. For permissionto reproduce any abstract, contact the <strong>ARVO</strong> Office at arvo@arvo.org.
<strong>ARVO</strong> 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts by Scientific Section/Group - <strong>Cornea</strong>E. Valas Teuma 1 , Liz Dumanoir 1 , Aissatou Barry 1 , Gary Gray 1 , G.Brock Magruder 2 , Steve Bott 1 . 1 R&D, LensAR Inc, Orlando, FL;2 LaserVue, Orlando, FL.Purpose: The human cornea has the ability to self-seal afterpenetrating incision wounds. The purpose of this work is to comparethe sealability of clear corneal incisions (CCIs) created by manualmeans to those generated by the LensAR Laser System - fs 3D (LLSfs3D).Methods: A total of 22 human donor globes were used for thisexperiment. The laser CCIs, were performed using the LLS-fs 3D.Standard three-plane CCIs were used for both the manual and laserCCIs. Post incisions, a high resolution Fourier domain opticalcoherence tomography (OCT) system was used to measure theincision geometry. After the OCT measurements, the sealability ofthe CCIs was measured using a digital pressure gauge. The Seidel testwas utilized to detect a leak of the aqueous onto the cornea. Acomputer-controlled stepper motor is used to push the plunger intothe eye. The IOP reported by the pressure gauge is recorded at thefirst sign of leakage. If the IOP reaches 500 mmHg without leakage,the test is considered complete.Results: One tailed t-tests of the sealability of the manual versuslaser CCIs, indicate that the mean IOP at which leakage occurred wasthe statistically the same for the two cases (p = 0.061). However,variability of IOP at leakage for the laser was significantly less thanfor the manual (±28 mmHg vs. ±94 mmHg). Regarding the measuredincision geometries, the geometric parameters measured for the laserincisions were always at least as good in accuracy and precision asthe manual and in several cases was superior. For example, a twotailed t-test of the mid-tunnel depth location versus target (50%)indicates that the laser incision was statistically significantly closer tothe target value than the manual incisions (mean 46% vs. 33%,p=0.26).Conclusions: The IOP at leakage of laser versus manual CCIs werestatistically the same. However, an F-test of the variance of the IOPelevation at which leakage occurred showed that the manual methodproduced incisions with statistically higher variance than those of thelaser CCIs. OCT measurements showed that the mean value of thelocation of the mid-plane of the three-plane CCI was placedsignificantly closer to the target placement for the laser versus themanual CCIs. Overall, the testing showed that the manual and lasermethods are statistically equivalent in sealability but that the lasermethod produces more consistent wound geometry.Commercial Relationships: E. Valas Teuma, Lensar Inc (E); LizDumanoir, None; Aissatou Barry, None; Gary Gray, LensAR (E);G. Brock Magruder, LensAR (C); Steve Bott, NoneProgram Number: 1644 Poster Board Number: D0279Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMEffect of Intraocular Pressure on Speed-of-Sound and Thicknessin Ex Vivo <strong>Cornea</strong> in Intact GlobesHarriet Lloyd 1 , Mara Berganovsky 1 , Ronald H. Silverman 1, 2 , RakshaUrs 1 . 1 Ophthalmology, Columbia University Medical Center, NewYork, NY; 2 Frederic L. Lizzi Center for Biomedical Engineering,Riverside Research, New York, NY.Purpose: Ultrasound is regarded as the ‘gold standard’ for thedetermination of corneal thickness, but standard methods formeasuring this parameter have required determination on excisedcorneas, which is non-physiologic. We developed a means formeasurement of speed-of-sound in intact globes. Our objective was todetermine the effect of intraocular pressure (IOP) on corneal speed ofsound and thickness.Methods: We acquired high-resolution ultrasound data on four exvivo pig corneas. The eyeball was mounted in a custom apparatus,which included a sharpened, thin, flat metal surface that was insertedacross the anterior chamber. An 18 gauge needle attached to a salinedrip bag was inserted through the optic nerve. IOP was raised andlowered by raising or lowering the saline bag and monitored with adigital pressure gauge attached to the IV line. The eye and apparatuswas submerged in 20% dextran solution. Data of the cornea and ofthe metal surface on either side of the globe were obtained using asingle-element focused transducer with a center frequency of 35MHz. Pulse/echo ultrasound data was acquired at a 400 MHz samplerate. We measured the shift in the metal flat echo compared to itsexpected, interpolated position, and from this and the speed-of-soundin aqueous and the dextran solution solved for the speed-of-soundand thickness of the cornea.Results: The speed-of-sound averaged over all cases showedrelatively little dependence on intraocular pressure. At 0 mm thespeed-of-sound averaged Hg 1556 m/s, at 40 mm Hg it was 1560 m/sand upon return to 0 mmHg it was 1548 m/s. These differences werenot statistically significant. The thickness of the cornea at 0mmHgmeasured 1.01 mm, at 40 mmHg it was 0.91 mm, and it recovered to0.96mm as the pressure was gradually reduced to 0mmHg.Conclusions: IOP had little effect on the speed-of-sound in thecornea, indicating that ultrasound pachymeters would not be requiredto be recalibrated to compensate for IOP. However, as pressureincreased, the cornea stretched and became thinner, recoveringgradually and partially as IOP was decreased.Commercial Relationships: Harriet Lloyd, None; MaraBerganovsky, None; Ronald H. Silverman, None; Raksha Urs,NoneSupport: NIH Grant EY021529; AIUM EER; Research to PreventBlindnessProgram Number: 1645 Poster Board Number: D0280Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMChange of corneal curvature under the open eye condition andthe slightly closed eye conditionYuko Shibata 1 , Hiroshi Uozato 1, 2 , Masakazu Hirota 1 , TakushiKawamorita 1, 2 . 1 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Kitasato UnivGraduate School, Sagamihara, Japan; 2 Orthoptics and VisualSciences, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Japan.Purpose: To assess the influence of squinted eyes, we measuredcorneal curvature under the condition of widely opened eye and thecondition of slightly closed eye.Methods: 39 eyes of 20 healthy subjects (age 21 - 42 yrs)participated in this study. <strong>Cornea</strong>l curvatures of central zone (1 - 4mm as a diameter) were measured and front photo images of theeyelids and eye were obtained at the same time by an anteriorsegment imaging analyzer (Galilei, Ziemer Ophthalmic Systems,Port, Switzerland) under both a condition with the eye opened widelyand a condition with the eye closed slightly in which subjects openedtheir eyes narrowly with consciousness.Results: The group mean size of slightly closed eye was 67.0 ± 12.2% of that of widely opened eye condition (Range: 45.9 - 89.5%). Themean SimK value average of widely opened eye was 43.59 ± 1.39 Dand that of slightly closed eye was 43.44 ± 1.57 D, the mean flatSimK value of widely opened eye was 42.82 ± 1.32 D and that ofslightly closed eyes was 42.35 ± 1.84 D and the mean steep SimKvalue of widely opened eye was 44.36 ± 1.53 D and that of slightlyclosed eye was 44.52 ± 1.69 D. Significant differences were found inflat SimK value and steep SimK value between two conditions(Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, p < 0.05) but there was no significantdifference in SimK value average. The mean anterior instantaneouscurvature Mean K of widely opened eye was 43.03 ±1.30 D and thatof slightly closed eye was 42.98 ± 1.59 D, the mean anterior©2013, Copyright by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc., all rights reserved. Go to iovs.org to access the version of record. For permissionto reproduce any abstract, contact the <strong>ARVO</strong> Office at arvo@arvo.org.
- Page 2 and 3:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 4 and 5:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 6 and 7:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 8 and 9:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 10:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 13 and 14:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 16 and 17:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 18 and 19:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 20 and 21:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 22 and 23:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 24 and 25:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 26 and 27:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 28 and 29:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 30 and 31:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 32 and 33:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 34 and 35:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 36 and 37:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 38 and 39:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 40 and 41:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 42 and 43:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 44 and 45:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 46 and 47:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 48 and 49:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 50 and 51:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 52 and 53: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 54 and 55: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 56 and 57: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 58 and 59: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 60 and 61: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 62 and 63: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 64 and 65: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 66 and 67: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 68 and 69: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 70 and 71: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 72 and 73: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 74 and 75: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 76 and 77: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 78 and 79: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 80 and 81: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 82 and 83: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 84 and 85: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 86 and 87: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 88 and 89: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 90 and 91: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 92 and 93: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 94 and 95: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 96 and 97: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 98 and 99: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 100 and 101: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 104 and 105: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 106 and 107: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 108 and 109: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 110 and 111: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 112 and 113: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 114 and 115: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 116 and 117: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 118 and 119: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 120 and 121: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 122 and 123: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 124 and 125: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 126 and 127: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 128 and 129: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 130 and 131: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 132 and 133: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 134 and 135: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 136 and 137: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 138 and 139: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 140 and 141: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 142 and 143: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 144 and 145: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 146 and 147: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 148 and 149: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 150 and 151: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 152 and 153:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 154 and 155:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 156 and 157:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 158 and 159:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 160 and 161:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 162 and 163:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 164 and 165:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 166 and 167:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 168 and 169:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 170 and 171:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 172 and 173:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 174 and 175:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 176 and 177:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 178 and 179:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 180 and 181:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 182 and 183:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 184 and 185:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 186 and 187:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 188 and 189:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 190 and 191:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 192 and 193:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 194 and 195:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 196 and 197:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 198 and 199:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 200 and 201:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 202 and 203:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 204 and 205:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 206 and 207:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 208 and 209:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 210 and 211:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 212 and 213:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 214 and 215:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 216 and 217:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 218 and 219:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 220 and 221:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 222 and 223:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 224 and 225:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 226 and 227:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 228 and 229:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 230 and 231:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 232 and 233:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 234 and 235:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 236 and 237:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 238 and 239:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 240 and 241:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 242 and 243:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 244 and 245:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 246 and 247:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 248 and 249:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 250 and 251:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 252 and 253:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 254 and 255:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 256 and 257:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 258 and 259:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 260 and 261:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 262 and 263:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 264 and 265:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 266 and 267:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 268 and 269:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 270 and 271:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 272 and 273:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 274 and 275:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 276 and 277:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 278 and 279:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 280 and 281:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 282 and 283:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 284 and 285:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 286 and 287:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 288 and 289:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 290 and 291:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 292 and 293:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 294 and 295:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 296 and 297:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 298 and 299:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 300 and 301:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 302 and 303:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 304 and 305:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 306 and 307:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 308 and 309:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 310 and 311:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 312 and 313:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 314 and 315:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 316 and 317:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 318 and 319:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 320 and 321:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 322 and 323:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 324 and 325:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 326 and 327:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 328 and 329:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 330 and 331:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 332 and 333:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 334 and 335:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 336 and 337:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 338 and 339:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 340 and 341:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 342 and 343:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 344 and 345:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 346 and 347:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 348 and 349:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 350 and 351:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 352 and 353:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 354 and 355:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 356 and 357:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 358 and 359:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 360 and 361:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 362 and 363:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 364 and 365:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 366 and 367:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 368 and 369:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 370 and 371:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 372 and 373:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 374 and 375:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 376 and 377:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 378 and 379:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 380 and 381:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 382 and 383:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts