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] A comparison between Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry after photorefractive keratectomy
    Sadigh, Afshin Lotfi
    Fouladi, Rohollah F.
    Hashemi, Hassan
    Beheshtnejad, Amir Houshang
    GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2013, 251 (02) : 603 - 608
  • [32] Differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry in pseudoexfoliation syndrome
    Grammenandi, Emilia
    Detorakis, Efstathios T.
    Pallikaris, Ioannis G.
    Tsilimbaris, Miltiadis K.
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2010, 38 (05) : 444 - 448
  • [33] Applanation Tonometry Versus Dynamic Contour Tonometry in Eyes Treated With Latanoprost
    Detorakis, Efstathios T.
    Arvanitaki, Vasiliki
    Pallikaris, Ioannis G.
    Kymionis, George
    Tsilimbaris, Miltiadis K.
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2010, 19 (03) : 194 - 198
  • [34] Differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry following Trabeculectomy
    Detorakis, Efstathios T.
    Grammenandi, Emilia
    Pallikaris, Ioannis G.
    Tsilimbaris, Miltiadis K.
    JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2010, 2010
  • [35] Intraocular pressure measurement after DSAEK by iCare, Goldmann applanation and dynamic contour tonometry: A comparative study
    Achiron, A.
    Blumenfeld, O.
    Avizemer, H.
    Karmona, L.
    Leybowich, G.
    Man, V.
    Bartov, E.
    Burgansky-Eliash, Z.
    JOURNAL FRANCAIS D OPHTALMOLOGIE, 2016, 39 (10): : 822 - 828
  • [36] 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
  • [37] 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
    Yoo, Chungkwon
    Eom, Young Sub
    Kim, Yong Yeon
    GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2010, 248 (11) : 1611 - 1616
  • [38] Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: challenging the gold standard
    Bochmann, Frank
    Kaufmann, Claude
    Thiel, Michael A.
    EXPERT REVIEW OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2010, 5 (06) : 743 - 749
  • [39] Influence of Corneal Thickness in Keratoconic Corneas on IOP Measurement with IOPen, iCare, Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry
    Klamann, M. K. J.
    Maier, A. -K. B.
    Gonnermann, J.
    Ruokonen, P.
    Bertelmann, E.
    Torun, N.
    KLINISCHE MONATSBLATTER FUR AUGENHEILKUNDE, 2013, 230 (07) : 697 - 700
  • [40] Dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) versus Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) - a comparison of agreement and reproducibility
    Herdener, Sonja
    Pache, Mona
    Lautebach, Sonja
    Funk, Jens
    GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2007, 245 (07) : 1027 - 1030