Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Difference of Intraocular Pressure Values Between Eyes with and without Glaucomatous Damage in Thin Corneas

被引:1
|
作者
Akkan, J. C. Umurhan [1 ]
Akkan, F. [2 ]
Akcay, B. I. Sezgin [3 ]
Ayintap, E. [1 ]
Tuncer, K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Bezmialem Vakif Univ, Fak Med, Augenklin, TR-34093 Istanbul, Turkey
[2] Lehr & Forsch Krankenhaus, Augenklin Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
[3] Lehr & Forsch Krankenhaus, Augenklin Umraniye, Istanbul, Turkey
关键词
intraocular pressure; Goldmann tonometry; dynamic contour tonometry; glaucoma; OPEN-ANGLE GLAUCOMA; THICKNESS; HEALTHY; AGE;
D O I
10.1055/s-0041-104772
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Background: To examine the differences in intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in subjects with thin corneas and to correlate these with structural and functional parameters of glaucoma damage. Patients and Methods: One hundred and thirty participants (130 eyes) with central corneal thickness lower than 500 mu m were included in five groups in this cross-sectional observational study: 52 eyes with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG), 19 eyes with normal tension glaucoma (NTG), 27 eyes with ocular hypertension (OHT), 21 participants suspected of having glaucoma (GS), and 11 healthy subjects. The measurements were obtained with GAT and DCT in a masked fashion. The corrected GAT-IOP for central corneal thickness (CCT), the difference between DCT and GAT (Delta IOP = DCT-GAT) and corrected Delta IOP (corrected Delta IOP = DCT-corrected GAT) were calculated. Age, mean deviation (MD) from the most recent reliable visual field examination, average retinal nerve fibre layer thickness (RNFL), cup-to-disc ratio (CDR), ocular pulse amplitude (OPA), and treatment status were recorded for statistical analysis. Results: In all of the subjects (n = 130), the mean DCT, GAT and corrected GAT values were 17.6 +/- 3.4 mmHg, 13.2 +/- 3.8 mmHg, and 15.5 +/- 2.1 mmHg, respectively. Delta IOP and corrected Delta IOP were 4.4 +/- 2 mmHg and 1.7 +/- 2 mmHg, respectively. Delta IOP was correlated negatively with MD (rs = -0.32, p < 0.0001) and average RNFL thickness (r = -0.46, p < 0.0001) and positively with CDR (rs = 0.50, p < 0.0001). The mean IOP measured by GAT differed statistically significantly between eyes with glaucoma (n = 71, POAG and NTG) and eyes without damage (n = 59; OHT, GS, and healthy) (p < 0.0001), whereas the mean IOP by DCT did not (p = 0.935). The mean Delta IOP values were also statistically significantly higher in the glaucomatous group, with and without correction for CCT (p < 0.001). OPA and glaucoma diagnoses statistically significantly predicted Delta IOP (R-2 = 0.41, F-2.127 = 47.46, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Greater underestimation of IOP by GAT was observed in the glaucomatous eyes with thin corneas. Performing DCT on patients with thin corneas might be advantageous in establishing the need for more aggressive treatment.
引用
收藏
页码:1190 / 1197
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in eyes with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP): comparison in the same eyes after subsequent medical normalization of IOP
    Chungkwon Yoo
    Young Sub Eom
    Yong Yeon Kim
    Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 2010, 248 : 1611 - 1616
  • [32] Intraocular pressure elevation after vitrectomy-Goldmann applanation tonometry measures lower intraocular pressure than dynamic contour tonometry
    Baeurle, Sebastian
    Viestenz, Anja
    Seitz, Berthold
    Viestenz, Arne
    OPHTHALMOLOGIE, 2022, 119 : S71 - S76
  • [33] Intraocular pressure elevation after vitrectomy-Goldmann applanation tonometry measures lower intraocular pressure than dynamic contour tonometry
    Baeurle, Sebastian
    Viestenz, Anja
    Seitz, Berthold
    Viestenz, Arne
    OPHTHALMOLOGE, 2022, 119 (SUPPL 1): : 71 - 76
  • [34] Accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry, and Tono-Pen XL in edematous corneas
    Kontadakis, George A.
    Pennos, Alexandros
    Pentari, Iro
    Kymionis, George D.
    Pallikaris, Ioannis G.
    Ginis, Harilaos
    THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2020, 12
  • [35] Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study
    Pache, M
    Wilmsmeyer, S
    Lautebach, S
    Funk, J
    GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2005, 243 (08) : 763 - 767
  • [36] A Clinical Comparison of Dynamic Contour Tonometry Versus Goldmann Applanation Tonometry
    Yalcinbayir, Ozgur
    Baykara, Mehmet
    Atasoy, Aydin
    Ozcetin, Hikmet
    OPHTHALMIC SURGERY LASERS & IMAGING, 2010, 41 (04) : 437 - 442
  • [37] A comparison between Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry after photorefractive keratectomy
    Afshin Lotfi Sadigh
    Rohollah F. Fouladi
    Hassan Hashemi
    Amir Houshang Beheshtnejad
    Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 2013, 251 : 603 - 608
  • [38] Dynamic Contour Tonometry versus Goldmann Applanation Tonometry after vitrectomy
    Mamas, Nikolaos
    Fuest, Matthias
    Roeler, Gernot
    Mazinani, Babac
    Plange, Niklas
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2013, 54 (15)
  • [39] Goldmann Applanation Tonometry Versus Dynamic Contour Tonometry After Vitrectomy
    Mamas, Nikolaos
    Fuest, Matthias
    Koutsonas, Antonios
    Roessler, Gernot
    Mazinani, Babac E.
    Walter, Peter
    Plange, Niklas
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2016, 25 (08) : 663 - 668
  • [40] Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study
    Mona Pache
    Sonja Wilmsmeyer
    Sonja Lautebach
    Jens Funk
    Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 2005, 243 : 763 - 767