Literature DB >> 19142646

[Influence of residual corneal bed thickness after myopic LASIK on intraocular pressure measurements. Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry].

L Muller1, T Kohnen.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the influence of residual bed thickness after myopic ablation on intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry.
METHODS: Intraocular pressure using Goldmann tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry was measured in 50 eyes before, 1 and 3 months after LASIK for myopia. LASIK surgery reduced the central corneal thickness by 71+/-27 microm. During surgery, corneal thickness was measured by optical coherence pachymetry (Online OCP, 4 optics AG) prior to flap creation, after flap lifting, and after laser ablation.
RESULTS: Postoperative measurements with Goldmann tonometry were reduced by -3.7 mmHg (p<10(-6)) and mean measurements with dynamic contour tonometry were reduced by -1.5 mmHg (p<10(-6)). Differences in measurements with Goldmann tonometry were significantly correlated with thickness of residual bed after ablation, whereas measurements with dynamic contour tonometry were not.
CONCLUSIONS: Thickness of residual bed appears to influence readings with Goldmann tonometry more than readings with dynamic contour tonometry after myopic LASIK.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19142646     DOI: 10.1007/s00347-008-1885-x

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


  22 in total

1.  Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis.

Authors:  Jun Liu; Cynthia J Roberts
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.351

Review 2.  [Dynamic contour tonometry].

Authors:  C Kniestedt; H E Kanngiesser
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 1.059

3.  Changes in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic, and noncontact tonometry.

Authors:  Jay S Pepose; Susan K Feigenbaum; Mujtaba A Qazi; Jeffrey P Sanderson; Cynthia J Roberts
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-10-20       Impact factor: 5.258

4.  The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry.

Authors:  A Kotecha; E T White; J M Shewry; D F Garway-Heath
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.638

5.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis treatment.

Authors:  S Duch; A Serra; J Castanera; R Abos; M Quintana
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 7.  Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers.

Authors:  M M Whitacre; R Stein
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  1993 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.048

8.  Accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry compared with applanation tonometry in human cadaver eyes of different hydration states.

Authors:  Christoph Kniestedt; Michelle Nee; Robert L Stamper
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-10-13       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry.

Authors:  Brian A Francis; Amy Hsieh; Mei-Ying Lai; Vikas Chopra; Fernando Pena; Stanley Azen; Rohit Varma
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2006-10-27       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis.

Authors:  Claude Kaufmann; Lucas M Bachmann; Michael A Thiel
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.799

View more
  4 in total

1.  Can we trust intraocular pressure measurements in eyes with intracameral air?

Authors:  Gauti Jóhannesson; Christina Lindén; Anders Eklund; Anders Behndig; Per Hallberg
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  [Mobile intraocular pressure measurement. From palpation to initial clinical experience with the handheld dynamic contour tonometer].

Authors:  U Schmid; C Kniestedt
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.059

3.  [Differences in the measurement results of Goldmann applanation tonometry with and without fluorescein].

Authors:  N Arend; C Hirneiss; M Kernt
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.059

4.  Comparison of different intraocular pressure measurement techniques in normal eyes, post surface and post lamellar refractive surgery.

Authors:  Shireen Ma Shousha; Mahmoud Ah Abo Steit; Mohamed Hm Hosny; Wael A Ewais; Ahmad Mm Shalaby
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-01-08
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.