Cargando…

A comparison of NCT, Goldman application tonometry values with and without fluorescein

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to statistically compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured using noncontact tonometer (NCT), Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) with fluorescein (fGAT), and GAT without fluorescein (nGAT). The study was also performed to test whether the values obtained u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Erdogan, Hakika, Akingol, Ziya, Cam, Ozlem, Sencan, Sadik
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6211304/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30464378
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S177870
_version_ 1783367304821604352
author Erdogan, Hakika
Akingol, Ziya
Cam, Ozlem
Sencan, Sadik
author_facet Erdogan, Hakika
Akingol, Ziya
Cam, Ozlem
Sencan, Sadik
author_sort Erdogan, Hakika
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to statistically compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured using noncontact tonometer (NCT), Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) with fluorescein (fGAT), and GAT without fluorescein (nGAT). The study was also performed to test whether the values obtained using each technique change in accordance with the central corneal thickness (CCT) and refractive and keratometric values. STUDY DESIGN: This study was a prospective study of 188 eyes of 94 healthy volunteers. Methods: IOP was measured using fGAT, nGAT and NCT. CCT, refractive values, and keratometric values were measured, and the correlations and differences in the IOP for each tonometer were investigated. RESULTS: The mean IOP values obtained with the NCT, nGAT, and fGAT were 17.5±3.7, 12.3±2.7, and 12.5±2 mmHg. The mean CCT was 538.2±34.4 µm, the mean refractive value was 0.9±1.2 D, and the mean keratometric value was 43.5±1.5 D. NCT was positively correlated with fGAT and GAT values and was significantly higher than both the values. There were no differences between fGAT and GAT values. No correlation was observed between the CCT and keratometric and refractive values and the difference between NCT and nGAT or fGAT. CONCLUSION: Differences in the measurements obtained using nGAT and fGAT were insignificant (P>0.05). Both values were positively correlated with NCT measurements (r =0.354, P<0.05) and were independent of CCT, keratometry, and refraction values. nGAT appears to be suitable for use in routine clinic practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6211304
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62113042018-11-21 A comparison of NCT, Goldman application tonometry values with and without fluorescein Erdogan, Hakika Akingol, Ziya Cam, Ozlem Sencan, Sadik Clin Ophthalmol Original Research PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to statistically compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured using noncontact tonometer (NCT), Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) with fluorescein (fGAT), and GAT without fluorescein (nGAT). The study was also performed to test whether the values obtained using each technique change in accordance with the central corneal thickness (CCT) and refractive and keratometric values. STUDY DESIGN: This study was a prospective study of 188 eyes of 94 healthy volunteers. Methods: IOP was measured using fGAT, nGAT and NCT. CCT, refractive values, and keratometric values were measured, and the correlations and differences in the IOP for each tonometer were investigated. RESULTS: The mean IOP values obtained with the NCT, nGAT, and fGAT were 17.5±3.7, 12.3±2.7, and 12.5±2 mmHg. The mean CCT was 538.2±34.4 µm, the mean refractive value was 0.9±1.2 D, and the mean keratometric value was 43.5±1.5 D. NCT was positively correlated with fGAT and GAT values and was significantly higher than both the values. There were no differences between fGAT and GAT values. No correlation was observed between the CCT and keratometric and refractive values and the difference between NCT and nGAT or fGAT. CONCLUSION: Differences in the measurements obtained using nGAT and fGAT were insignificant (P>0.05). Both values were positively correlated with NCT measurements (r =0.354, P<0.05) and were independent of CCT, keratometry, and refraction values. nGAT appears to be suitable for use in routine clinic practice. Dove Medical Press 2018-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6211304/ /pubmed/30464378 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S177870 Text en © 2018 Erdogan et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Erdogan, Hakika
Akingol, Ziya
Cam, Ozlem
Sencan, Sadik
A comparison of NCT, Goldman application tonometry values with and without fluorescein
title A comparison of NCT, Goldman application tonometry values with and without fluorescein
title_full A comparison of NCT, Goldman application tonometry values with and without fluorescein
title_fullStr A comparison of NCT, Goldman application tonometry values with and without fluorescein
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of NCT, Goldman application tonometry values with and without fluorescein
title_short A comparison of NCT, Goldman application tonometry values with and without fluorescein
title_sort comparison of nct, goldman application tonometry values with and without fluorescein
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6211304/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30464378
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S177870
work_keys_str_mv AT erdoganhakika acomparisonofnctgoldmanapplicationtonometryvalueswithandwithoutfluorescein
AT akingolziya acomparisonofnctgoldmanapplicationtonometryvalueswithandwithoutfluorescein
AT camozlem acomparisonofnctgoldmanapplicationtonometryvalueswithandwithoutfluorescein
AT sencansadik acomparisonofnctgoldmanapplicationtonometryvalueswithandwithoutfluorescein
AT erdoganhakika comparisonofnctgoldmanapplicationtonometryvalueswithandwithoutfluorescein
AT akingolziya comparisonofnctgoldmanapplicationtonometryvalueswithandwithoutfluorescein
AT camozlem comparisonofnctgoldmanapplicationtonometryvalueswithandwithoutfluorescein
AT sencansadik comparisonofnctgoldmanapplicationtonometryvalueswithandwithoutfluorescein