Cargando…

Evaluation of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure using Corvis ST and comparison of the Corvis ST, noncontact tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of various anatomical structures on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by the Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (Corvis ST), Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), and noncontact tonometer (NCT), as well as to asses...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nakao, Yoshitaka, Kiuchi, Yoshiaki, Okumichi, Hideaki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7510959/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32966284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238395
_version_ 1783585882585956352
author Nakao, Yoshitaka
Kiuchi, Yoshiaki
Okumichi, Hideaki
author_facet Nakao, Yoshitaka
Kiuchi, Yoshiaki
Okumichi, Hideaki
author_sort Nakao, Yoshitaka
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of various anatomical structures on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by the Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (Corvis ST), Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), and noncontact tonometer (NCT), as well as to assess the interchangeability among the four types of IOP measurement: IOP-GAT, IOP-NCT, IOP-Corvis, and biomechanically corrected IOP (bIOP-Corvis), with a particular focus on bIOP-Corvis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 71 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and assessed their IOP measurements obtained with the GAT, NCT, and Corvis ST using a repeated measures ANOVA, a paired t-test with Bonferroni correction, stepwise multiple regression analyses and Bland–Altman plots. RESULTS: IOP-GAT showed the highest values (13.5 ± 2.1 mmHg [mean ± standard deviation]), followed by IOP-NCT (13.2 ± 2.7 mmHg), IOP-Corvis (10.6 ± 2.8 mmHg), and bIOP-Corvis (10.0 ± 2.3 mmHg). With exceptions of bIOP-Corvis and IOP-GAT, all IOP variations were explained by regression coefficients involving the central corneal thickness. Bland–Altman plots showed a mean difference between IOP-GAT and the other IOP measurements (IOP-Corvis, bIOP-Corvis, and IOP-NCT), which were -2.90, -3.48, and -0.29 mmHg, respectively. The widths of the 95% limits of agreement between all pairs of IOP measurements were greater than 3 mmHg. CONCLUSION: IOP values obtained with the Corvis ST, NCT, and GAT were not interchangeable. The bIOP-Corvis measurement corrected for the ocular structure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7510959
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75109592020-10-01 Evaluation of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure using Corvis ST and comparison of the Corvis ST, noncontact tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma Nakao, Yoshitaka Kiuchi, Yoshiaki Okumichi, Hideaki PLoS One Research Article PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of various anatomical structures on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by the Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (Corvis ST), Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), and noncontact tonometer (NCT), as well as to assess the interchangeability among the four types of IOP measurement: IOP-GAT, IOP-NCT, IOP-Corvis, and biomechanically corrected IOP (bIOP-Corvis), with a particular focus on bIOP-Corvis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 71 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and assessed their IOP measurements obtained with the GAT, NCT, and Corvis ST using a repeated measures ANOVA, a paired t-test with Bonferroni correction, stepwise multiple regression analyses and Bland–Altman plots. RESULTS: IOP-GAT showed the highest values (13.5 ± 2.1 mmHg [mean ± standard deviation]), followed by IOP-NCT (13.2 ± 2.7 mmHg), IOP-Corvis (10.6 ± 2.8 mmHg), and bIOP-Corvis (10.0 ± 2.3 mmHg). With exceptions of bIOP-Corvis and IOP-GAT, all IOP variations were explained by regression coefficients involving the central corneal thickness. Bland–Altman plots showed a mean difference between IOP-GAT and the other IOP measurements (IOP-Corvis, bIOP-Corvis, and IOP-NCT), which were -2.90, -3.48, and -0.29 mmHg, respectively. The widths of the 95% limits of agreement between all pairs of IOP measurements were greater than 3 mmHg. CONCLUSION: IOP values obtained with the Corvis ST, NCT, and GAT were not interchangeable. The bIOP-Corvis measurement corrected for the ocular structure. Public Library of Science 2020-09-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7510959/ /pubmed/32966284 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238395 Text en © 2020 Nakao et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Nakao, Yoshitaka
Kiuchi, Yoshiaki
Okumichi, Hideaki
Evaluation of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure using Corvis ST and comparison of the Corvis ST, noncontact tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma
title Evaluation of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure using Corvis ST and comparison of the Corvis ST, noncontact tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma
title_full Evaluation of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure using Corvis ST and comparison of the Corvis ST, noncontact tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma
title_fullStr Evaluation of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure using Corvis ST and comparison of the Corvis ST, noncontact tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure using Corvis ST and comparison of the Corvis ST, noncontact tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma
title_short Evaluation of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure using Corvis ST and comparison of the Corvis ST, noncontact tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma
title_sort evaluation of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure using corvis st and comparison of the corvis st, noncontact tonometer, and goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7510959/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32966284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238395
work_keys_str_mv AT nakaoyoshitaka evaluationofbiomechanicallycorrectedintraocularpressureusingcorvisstandcomparisonofthecorvisstnoncontacttonometerandgoldmannapplanationtonometerinpatientswithglaucoma
AT kiuchiyoshiaki evaluationofbiomechanicallycorrectedintraocularpressureusingcorvisstandcomparisonofthecorvisstnoncontacttonometerandgoldmannapplanationtonometerinpatientswithglaucoma
AT okumichihideaki evaluationofbiomechanicallycorrectedintraocularpressureusingcorvisstandcomparisonofthecorvisstnoncontacttonometerandgoldmannapplanationtonometerinpatientswithglaucoma