Cargando…

Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma

AIM: Comparing intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using Goldmann applanation prism and TonoSafe® in the population without signs of glaucoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with no ocular pathologies, except ametropia (until ± 4 D) or IOP of <30 mm Hg without signs of glaucoma by optic disc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Soares, Pedro Henrique Alves, Santos, Rafael de Oliveira, Filho, Celso Ribeiro Angelo De Menezes, Neto, Sebastião Pimenta Moraes, Junior, João Antonio Prata
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10357021/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37485456
http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1401
_version_ 1785075404131794944
author Soares, Pedro Henrique Alves
Santos, Rafael de Oliveira
Filho, Celso Ribeiro Angelo De Menezes
Neto, Sebastião Pimenta Moraes
Junior, João Antonio Prata
author_facet Soares, Pedro Henrique Alves
Santos, Rafael de Oliveira
Filho, Celso Ribeiro Angelo De Menezes
Neto, Sebastião Pimenta Moraes
Junior, João Antonio Prata
author_sort Soares, Pedro Henrique Alves
collection PubMed
description AIM: Comparing intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using Goldmann applanation prism and TonoSafe® in the population without signs of glaucoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with no ocular pathologies, except ametropia (until ± 4 D) or IOP of <30 mm Hg without signs of glaucoma by optic disc structural analysis by fundus biomicroscopy. The IOP was measured sequentially using the traditional cone and the TonoSafe®, according to a randomization list to determine which device would be used first. The measurements from the right and left eyes were compared separately. Since there was no statistical difference, both eyes were considered in this study. RESULTS: A total of 385 eyes of 194 patients with a mean age of 66.4 ± 11.2 years old were included. The mean IOP with conventional prism was 14.2 ± 3.6 and 14.3 ± 3.6 mm Hg with TonoSafe(®). Differences were not statistically significant by the Wilcoxon test (p = 0.3). The median was 14.0 mm Hg for both groups. The mean difference between measurements was 0.04 mm Hg, with the median equal to zero. There was no statistical difference in IOP readings according to which device was the first measurement. CONCLUSION: No statistical difference was found in IOP was measured with conventional prism or TonoSafe® in the population without signs of glaucoma. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The data provided by our study support the efficacy and safety of the disposable tonometer compared to the Goldman tonometer in measuring IOP in patients without glaucoma. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Soares PHA, Santos RDO, Filho CRADM, et al. Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2023;17(2):75-78.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10357021
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103570212023-07-21 Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma Soares, Pedro Henrique Alves Santos, Rafael de Oliveira Filho, Celso Ribeiro Angelo De Menezes Neto, Sebastião Pimenta Moraes Junior, João Antonio Prata J Curr Glaucoma Pract Original Article AIM: Comparing intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using Goldmann applanation prism and TonoSafe® in the population without signs of glaucoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with no ocular pathologies, except ametropia (until ± 4 D) or IOP of <30 mm Hg without signs of glaucoma by optic disc structural analysis by fundus biomicroscopy. The IOP was measured sequentially using the traditional cone and the TonoSafe®, according to a randomization list to determine which device would be used first. The measurements from the right and left eyes were compared separately. Since there was no statistical difference, both eyes were considered in this study. RESULTS: A total of 385 eyes of 194 patients with a mean age of 66.4 ± 11.2 years old were included. The mean IOP with conventional prism was 14.2 ± 3.6 and 14.3 ± 3.6 mm Hg with TonoSafe(®). Differences were not statistically significant by the Wilcoxon test (p = 0.3). The median was 14.0 mm Hg for both groups. The mean difference between measurements was 0.04 mm Hg, with the median equal to zero. There was no statistical difference in IOP readings according to which device was the first measurement. CONCLUSION: No statistical difference was found in IOP was measured with conventional prism or TonoSafe® in the population without signs of glaucoma. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The data provided by our study support the efficacy and safety of the disposable tonometer compared to the Goldman tonometer in measuring IOP in patients without glaucoma. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Soares PHA, Santos RDO, Filho CRADM, et al. Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2023;17(2):75-78. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10357021/ /pubmed/37485456 http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1401 Text en Copyright © 2023; The Author(s). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/© The Author(s). 2023 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Original Article
Soares, Pedro Henrique Alves
Santos, Rafael de Oliveira
Filho, Celso Ribeiro Angelo De Menezes
Neto, Sebastião Pimenta Moraes
Junior, João Antonio Prata
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma
title Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma
title_full Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma
title_fullStr Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma
title_full_unstemmed Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma
title_short Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma
title_sort goldmann applanation tonometry: comparison of intraocular pressure values obtained with disposable tip and conventional applanation prism in the population without clinical signs of glaucoma
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10357021/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37485456
http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1401
work_keys_str_mv AT soarespedrohenriquealves goldmannapplanationtonometrycomparisonofintraocularpressurevaluesobtainedwithdisposabletipandconventionalapplanationprisminthepopulationwithoutclinicalsignsofglaucoma
AT santosrafaeldeoliveira goldmannapplanationtonometrycomparisonofintraocularpressurevaluesobtainedwithdisposabletipandconventionalapplanationprisminthepopulationwithoutclinicalsignsofglaucoma
AT filhocelsoribeiroangelodemenezes goldmannapplanationtonometrycomparisonofintraocularpressurevaluesobtainedwithdisposabletipandconventionalapplanationprisminthepopulationwithoutclinicalsignsofglaucoma
AT netosebastiaopimentamoraes goldmannapplanationtonometrycomparisonofintraocularpressurevaluesobtainedwithdisposabletipandconventionalapplanationprisminthepopulationwithoutclinicalsignsofglaucoma
AT juniorjoaoantonioprata goldmannapplanationtonometrycomparisonofintraocularpressurevaluesobtainedwithdisposabletipandconventionalapplanationprisminthepopulationwithoutclinicalsignsofglaucoma