Cargando…

Analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices

BACKGROUND: To evaluate differences of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements performed with Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), rebound tonometry (RT), Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and Corvis ST (CST) in eyes screened for refractive surgery. METHODS: One eye, o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lanza, Michele, Rinaldi, Michele, Carnevale, Ugo Antonello Gironi, di Staso, Silvio, Sconocchia, Mario Bifani, Costagliola, Ciro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30176825
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0900-5
_version_ 1783352682193354752
author Lanza, Michele
Rinaldi, Michele
Carnevale, Ugo Antonello Gironi
di Staso, Silvio
Sconocchia, Mario Bifani
Costagliola, Ciro
author_facet Lanza, Michele
Rinaldi, Michele
Carnevale, Ugo Antonello Gironi
di Staso, Silvio
Sconocchia, Mario Bifani
Costagliola, Ciro
author_sort Lanza, Michele
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To evaluate differences of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements performed with Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), rebound tonometry (RT), Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and Corvis ST (CST) in eyes screened for refractive surgery. METHODS: One eye, only the right one, of 146 patients was included in this study. Each participant was submitted to a corneal analysis with Scheimpflug camera and IOP evaluation with GAT, DCT, RT, ORA and CST. Differences in IOP values obtained thanks to each instruments were compared and then correlations between these discrepancies and morphological features such as mean keratometry (MK) and central corneal thickness (CCT) provided by Pentacam were studied. Software used to run statistical evaluations was SPSS, version 18.0. RESULTS: Study participants had a mean age of 33.1 ± 9.2 years old. IOP values observed in this study were 15.97 ± 2.47 mmHg (GAT), 17.55 ± 2.42 mmHg (DCT), 17.49 ± 2.08 mmHg (RT), 18.51 ± 2.59 mmHg (ORA) and 18.33 ± 2.31 mmHg (CST). The mean CCT was 560.23 ± 31.00 μm, and the mean MK was 43.33 ± 1.35 D. GAT provided significant lower values in comparison to all other devices. DCT and RT gave significantly lower intermediate IOP values than those measured with ORA and CST. All the IOP measures and the differences between devices were significantly correlated with CCT. CONCLUSIONS: According to our data, although our findings should be confirmed in further studies, GAT tonometer cannot be used interchangeably with DCT, RT, ORA and CST.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6122572
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61225722018-09-05 Analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices Lanza, Michele Rinaldi, Michele Carnevale, Ugo Antonello Gironi di Staso, Silvio Sconocchia, Mario Bifani Costagliola, Ciro BMC Ophthalmol Research Article BACKGROUND: To evaluate differences of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements performed with Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), rebound tonometry (RT), Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and Corvis ST (CST) in eyes screened for refractive surgery. METHODS: One eye, only the right one, of 146 patients was included in this study. Each participant was submitted to a corneal analysis with Scheimpflug camera and IOP evaluation with GAT, DCT, RT, ORA and CST. Differences in IOP values obtained thanks to each instruments were compared and then correlations between these discrepancies and morphological features such as mean keratometry (MK) and central corneal thickness (CCT) provided by Pentacam were studied. Software used to run statistical evaluations was SPSS, version 18.0. RESULTS: Study participants had a mean age of 33.1 ± 9.2 years old. IOP values observed in this study were 15.97 ± 2.47 mmHg (GAT), 17.55 ± 2.42 mmHg (DCT), 17.49 ± 2.08 mmHg (RT), 18.51 ± 2.59 mmHg (ORA) and 18.33 ± 2.31 mmHg (CST). The mean CCT was 560.23 ± 31.00 μm, and the mean MK was 43.33 ± 1.35 D. GAT provided significant lower values in comparison to all other devices. DCT and RT gave significantly lower intermediate IOP values than those measured with ORA and CST. All the IOP measures and the differences between devices were significantly correlated with CCT. CONCLUSIONS: According to our data, although our findings should be confirmed in further studies, GAT tonometer cannot be used interchangeably with DCT, RT, ORA and CST. BioMed Central 2018-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6122572/ /pubmed/30176825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0900-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and 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/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lanza, Michele
Rinaldi, Michele
Carnevale, Ugo Antonello Gironi
di Staso, Silvio
Sconocchia, Mario Bifani
Costagliola, Ciro
Analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices
title Analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices
title_full Analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices
title_fullStr Analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices
title_full_unstemmed Analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices
title_short Analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices
title_sort analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30176825
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0900-5
work_keys_str_mv AT lanzamichele analysisofdifferencesinintraocularpressureevaluationperformedwithcontactandnoncontactdevices
AT rinaldimichele analysisofdifferencesinintraocularpressureevaluationperformedwithcontactandnoncontactdevices
AT carnevaleugoantonellogironi analysisofdifferencesinintraocularpressureevaluationperformedwithcontactandnoncontactdevices
AT distasosilvio analysisofdifferencesinintraocularpressureevaluationperformedwithcontactandnoncontactdevices
AT sconocchiamariobifani analysisofdifferencesinintraocularpressureevaluationperformedwithcontactandnoncontactdevices
AT costagliolaciro analysisofdifferencesinintraocularpressureevaluationperformedwithcontactandnoncontactdevices