Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained by Ocular Response Analyzer, Dynamic Contour Tonometry, and Goldmann Tonometry in Keratokonic Corneas

被引:16
|
作者
Bayer, Atilla [1 ]
Sahin, Afsun
Hurmeric, Volkan
Ozge, Gokhan
机构
[1] Gulhane Mil Med Acad, Dept Ophthalmol, Ankara, Turkey
关键词
dynamic contour tonometry; goldmann applanation tonometer; intraocular pressure; keratoconus; ocular response analyzer; APPLANATION TONOMETRY; BIOMECHANICAL PROPERTIES; THICKNESS; EYES; KERATOCONUS; PARAMETERS;
D O I
10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181ca7aeb
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To determine the agreement between dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) in keratoconic corneas and to find out the effect of corneal biomechanics on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by these devices. Subjects and Methods: IOP was measured with the ORA, DCT, and GAT in random order in 120 eyes of 61 keratoconus patients. Central corneal thickness (CCT) and keratometry were measured after all IOP determinations had been made. The mean IOP measurement by the ORA and DCT was compared with the measurement by the GAT, using Student t test. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the clinical agreement between these methods. The effect of corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), and CCT on measured IOP was explored by multiple backward stepwise linear regression analysis. Results: The mean +/- SD patient age was 30.6 +/- 11.2 years. The mean +/- SD IOP measurement obtained with GAT, ORA Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg), ORA corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc), and DCT was 10.96 +/- 2.8, 10.23 +/- 3.5, 14.65 +/- 2.8, and 15.42 +/- 2.7 mm Hg, respectively. The mean +/- SD CCT was 464.08 +/- 58.4 microns. The mean difference between IOPcc and GAT (P<0.0001), IOPcc and DCT (P<0.001), GAT and DCT (P<0.0001), IOPg and GAT (P<0.002), and IOPg and DCT (P<0.0001), was highly statistically significant. In multivariable regression analysis, DCT IOP and GAT IOP measurements were significantly associated with CH and CRF (P<0.0001 for both). Conclusions: DCT seemed to be affected by CH and CRF, and the IOP values tended to be higher when compared with GAT. ORA-measured IOPcc was found to be independent of CCT and suitable in comparison to the DCT in keratoconic eyes.
引用
收藏
页码:540 / 545
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [2] Assessment of intraocular pressure measured by Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer, Goldmann Applanation Tonometry, and Dynamic Contour Tonometry in healthy individuals
    Ouyang, Ping-Bo
    Li, Cong-Yi
    Zhu, Xiao-Hua
    Duan, Xuan-Chu
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2012, 5 (01) : 102 - 107
  • [3] Repeatability and Reproducibility for Intraocular Pressure Measurement by Dynamic Contour, Ocular Response Analyzer, and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry
    Sullivan-Mee, Michael
    Gerhardt, Gretchen
    Halverson, Kathy D.
    Qualls, Clifford
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2009, 18 (09) : 666 - 673
  • [4] Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Difference of Intraocular Pressure Values Between Eyes with and without Glaucomatous Damage in Thin Corneas
    Akkan, J. C. Umurhan
    Akkan, F.
    Akcay, B. I. Sezgin
    Ayintap, E.
    Tuncer, K.
    KLINISCHE MONATSBLATTER FUR AUGENHEILKUNDE, 2015, 232 (10) : 1190 - 1197
  • [5] Intraocular pressure measurement - Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry
    Schneider, E
    Grehn, F
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2006, 15 (01) : 2 - 6
  • [6] Comparison of intraocular pressure measurement by Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry
    DeBry, PW
    Krishna, R
    Willoughby, TL
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2003, 44 : U372 - U372
  • [7] Repeatability and Reproducibility of Goldmann Applanation, Dynamic Contour, and Ocular Response Analyzer Tonometry
    Wang, Allen Shawlun
    Alencar, Luciana M.
    Weinreb, Robert N.
    Tafreshi, Ali
    Deokule, Sunil
    Vizzeri, Gianmarco
    Medeiros, Felipe A.
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2013, 22 (02) : 127 - 132
  • [8] Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements
    Martinez-de-la-Casa, Jose M.
    Garcia-Feijoo, Julian
    Fernandez-Vidal, Ana
    Mendez-Hernandez, Carmen
    Garcia-Sanchez, Julian
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2006, 47 (10) : 4410 - 4414
  • [9] Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry
    Ku, JYF
    Danesh-Meyer, HV
    Craig, JP
    Gamble, GD
    McGhee, CNJ
    EYE, 2006, 20 (02) : 191 - 198
  • [10] Dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry: correlation with intracameral assessment of intraocular pressure
    Riva, Ivano
    Quaranta, Luciano
    Russo, Andrea
    Katsanos, Andreas
    Rulli, Eliana
    Floriani, Irene
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2012, 22 (01) : 55 - 62