Cargando…

Differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry following Trabeculectomy

Background. To evaluate differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry (GAT) and Dynamic Controur Tonometry (DCT) following trabeculectomy. Methods. Thirty eight glaucomatous eyes with a history of trabeculectomy (Trabeculectomy group, TG), 20 eyes without a history of trabeculectomy but with a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Detorakis, Efstathios T., Grammenandi, Emilia, Pallikaris, Ioannis G., Tsilimbaris, Miltiadis K.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20706652
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/357387
_version_ 1782184699285733376
author Detorakis, Efstathios T.
Grammenandi, Emilia
Pallikaris, Ioannis G.
Tsilimbaris, Miltiadis K.
author_facet Detorakis, Efstathios T.
Grammenandi, Emilia
Pallikaris, Ioannis G.
Tsilimbaris, Miltiadis K.
author_sort Detorakis, Efstathios T.
collection PubMed
description Background. To evaluate differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry (GAT) and Dynamic Controur Tonometry (DCT) following trabeculectomy. Methods. Thirty eight glaucomatous eyes with a history of trabeculectomy (Trabeculectomy group, TG), 20 eyes without a history of trabeculectomy but with a history of latanoprost use (Latanoprost group, LG), and 19 nonglaucomatous eyes (Control group, CG) were included. GAT-IOP, DCT-IOP, the difference between them (dIOP), the central corneal thickness (CCT), the axial length (AL), and the depth of the anterior chamber (ACD) were measured. Results. dIOP was significantly higher in TG (5.19 mmHg) than in LG (4.01 mmHg) and CG (1.98 mmHg). Correlations between AL and dIOP were statistically significant in both TG and LG but not in CG whereas correlations between dIOP and other clinical parameters examined were statistically not significant in all groups. Conclusions. The significantly higher dIOP in TG implies that the bio-mechanical properties of the ocular walls are altered following trabeculectomy.
format Text
id pubmed-2913849
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29138492010-08-12 Differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry following Trabeculectomy Detorakis, Efstathios T. Grammenandi, Emilia Pallikaris, Ioannis G. Tsilimbaris, Miltiadis K. J Ophthalmol Clinical Study Background. To evaluate differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry (GAT) and Dynamic Controur Tonometry (DCT) following trabeculectomy. Methods. Thirty eight glaucomatous eyes with a history of trabeculectomy (Trabeculectomy group, TG), 20 eyes without a history of trabeculectomy but with a history of latanoprost use (Latanoprost group, LG), and 19 nonglaucomatous eyes (Control group, CG) were included. GAT-IOP, DCT-IOP, the difference between them (dIOP), the central corneal thickness (CCT), the axial length (AL), and the depth of the anterior chamber (ACD) were measured. Results. dIOP was significantly higher in TG (5.19 mmHg) than in LG (4.01 mmHg) and CG (1.98 mmHg). Correlations between AL and dIOP were statistically significant in both TG and LG but not in CG whereas correlations between dIOP and other clinical parameters examined were statistically not significant in all groups. Conclusions. The significantly higher dIOP in TG implies that the bio-mechanical properties of the ocular walls are altered following trabeculectomy. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2010 2010-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC2913849/ /pubmed/20706652 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/357387 Text en Copyright © 2010 Efstathios T. Detorakis et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Detorakis, Efstathios T.
Grammenandi, Emilia
Pallikaris, Ioannis G.
Tsilimbaris, Miltiadis K.
Differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry following Trabeculectomy
title Differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry following Trabeculectomy
title_full Differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry following Trabeculectomy
title_fullStr Differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry following Trabeculectomy
title_full_unstemmed Differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry following Trabeculectomy
title_short Differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry following Trabeculectomy
title_sort differences between goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry following trabeculectomy
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20706652
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/357387
work_keys_str_mv AT detorakisefstathiost differencesbetweengoldmannapplanationtonometryanddynamiccontourtonometryfollowingtrabeculectomy
AT grammenandiemilia differencesbetweengoldmannapplanationtonometryanddynamiccontourtonometryfollowingtrabeculectomy
AT pallikarisioannisg differencesbetweengoldmannapplanationtonometryanddynamiccontourtonometryfollowingtrabeculectomy
AT tsilimbarismiltiadisk differencesbetweengoldmannapplanationtonometryanddynamiccontourtonometryfollowingtrabeculectomy