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