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