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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |