Literature DB >> 10959183

[Impression and applanation tonometry in irregular corneas. Comparison with intraocular needle tonometry].

F Madjlessi1, W Marx, T Reinhard, C Althaus, R Sundmacher.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: During the past 4 years we have demonstrated in eyes with corneal pathology that applanation tonometry (Goldmann, Perkins) generally delivers falsely low measurements in comparison to intraocular needle tonometry. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether impression tonometry (Schioetz) is more precise than applanation tonometry in determining the intraocular pressure in eyes with corneal disorders. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 75 eyes with suspected glaucoma and various corneal disorders, we performed applanation tonometry and impression tonometry before intraocular needle tonometry. Applanation tonometry was repeated after impression tonometry to unveil a possible tonography effect. Intraocular needle tonometry was performed thereafter.
RESULTS: Applanation tonometry results were 4.1 +/- 5.3 mmHg below intraocular pressure as determined by intraocular needle tonometry. Impression tonometry results were also lower: 4.3 +/- 6.8 mmHg (5.5 g), 4.3 +/- 6.4 mmHg (7.5 g), and 4.8 +/- 7.0 mmHg (10.0 g). The differences between applanation tonometry and impression tonometry were statistically not significant. In contrast, all the differences between extraocular tonometry procedures and intraocular needle tonometry were statistically highly significant (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: In corneal pathology both, applanation tonometry and impression tonometry do not deliver reliable results on an average. Only intraocular needle-tonometry delivers reliable results in these eyes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10959183     DOI: 10.1007/s003470070078

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmologe        ISSN: 0941-293X            Impact factor:   1.059


  6 in total

1.  Measurement of the intraocular pressure with the "transpalpebral tonometer" TGDc-01 in comparison with applanation tonometry.

Authors:  Dirk Sandner; Andreas Böhm; Sandra Kostov; Lutz Pillunat
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-12-22       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  [Prophylaxis and management of complications in penetrating keratoplasty].

Authors:  B Seitz; M El-Husseiny; A Langenbucher; N Szentmáry
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.059

3.  [Evaluation of dynamic contour tonometry in penetrating keratoplasties].

Authors:  An Viestenz; A Langenbucher; B Seitz; Ar Viestenz
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.059

4.  [Alterations in intraocular pressure and the CorVis parameters after LASIK].

Authors:  A Anton; M Neuburger; J F Jordan; T Wecker; J Lübke; S Heinzelmann; T Lapp; D Böhringer; T Reinhard; P Maier
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.059

5.  [Transpalpebral tonometry with a digital tonometer in healthy eyes and after penetrating keratoplasty].

Authors:  M Amm; J Hedderich
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 1.059

6.  Comparison of intraocular tonometry using three different non-invasive tonometers in children.

Authors:  Julia Lasseck; Thomas Jehle; Nicolas Feltgen; Wolf Alexander Lagrèze
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-06-14       Impact factor: 3.117

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.