Literature DB >> 22553765

Assessment of intraocular pressure measured by Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer, Goldmann Applanation Tonometry, and Dynamic Contour Tonometry in healthy individuals.

Ping-Bo Ouyang1, Cong-Yi Li, Xiao-Hua Zhu, Xuan-Chu Duan.   

Abstract

AIM: To investigate the accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) as measured by a Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA), as well as the relationship between central corneal thickness (CCT) and IOP as measured by ORA, Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT).
METHODS: A total of 158 healthy individuals (296 eyes) were chosen randomly for measurement of IOP. After CCT was measured using A-ultrasound (A-US), IOP was measured by ORA, GAT, and DCT devices in a randomized order. The IOP values acquired using each of the three tonometries were compared, and the relationship between CCT and IOP values were analyzed separately. Two IOP values, Goldmann-correlated IOP value (IOPg) and corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc), were got using ORA. Three groups were defined according to CCT: 1) thin cornea (CCT<520µm); 2) normal-thickness cornea (CCT: 520-580µm); and 3) thick cornea (CCT>580µm) groups.
RESULTS: In normal subjects, IOP measurements were 14.95±2.99mmHg with ORA (IOPg), 15.21±2.77mmHg with ORA (IOPcc), 15.22±2.77mmHg with GAT, and 15.49±2.56mmHg with DCT. Mean differences were 0.01±2.29mmHg between IOPcc and GAT (P>0.05) and 0.28±2.20mmHg between IOPcc and DCT (P>0.05). There was a greater correlation between IOPcc and DCT (r=0.946, P=0.000) than that between IOPcc and GAT (r=0.845, P=0.000). DCT had a significant correlation with GAT (r=0.854, P=0.000). GAT was moderately correlated with CCT (r=0.296, P<0.001), while IOPcc showed a weak but significant correlation with CCT (r=-0.155, P=0.007). There was a strong negative correlation between CCT and the difference between IOPcc and GAT(r=-0.803, P=0.000), with every 10µm increase in CCT resulting in an increase in this difference of 0.35mmHg. The thick cornea group (CCT>580µm) showed the least significant correlation between IOPcc and GAT (r=0.859, P=0.000); while the thin cornea group (CCT<520µm) had the most significant correlation between IOPcc and GAT (r=0.926, P=0.000). The correlated differences between IOPcc and DCT were not significant in any of the three groups (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Measurement of IOP by ORA has high repeatability and is largely consistent with GAT measurements. Moreover, the ORA measurements are affected only to a small extent by CCT, and are likely to be much closer to the real IOP value than GAT.

Entities:  

Keywords:  central corneal thickness; intraocular pressure; tonometry

Year:  2012        PMID: 22553765      PMCID: PMC3340849          DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2012.01.21

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 2222-3959            Impact factor:   1.779


  20 in total

1.  Correlation between central corneal thickness, applanation tonometry, and direct intracameral IOP readings.

Authors:  N Feltgen; D Leifert; J Funk
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 4.638

2.  [Applanation tonometry].

Authors:  H GOLDMANN; T SCHMIDT
Journal:  Ophthalmologica       Date:  1957-10       Impact factor: 3.250

3.  Intraocular pressure measurement-comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry.

Authors:  Evelin Schneider; Franz Grehn
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure in a Nepalese population: the Bhaktapur Glaucoma Study.

Authors:  Suman S Thapa; Indira Paudyal; Shankar Khanal; Nabin Paudel; Steven L Mansberger; Ger H M B van Rens
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Intraocular pressure instrument reading comparisons after LASIK.

Authors:  Fang Fan; Congyi Li; Yuehua Li; Xuanchu Duan; Dongning Pan
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.973

6.  Poor utility of intraocular pressure correction formulae in individual glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients.

Authors:  Ghee S Ang; Simon Nicholas; Anthony P Wells
Journal:  Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.207

7.  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

8.  The effect of thin, thick, and normal corneas on Goldmann intraocular pressure measurements and correction formulae in individual eyes.

Authors:  Serena J K Park; Ghee Soon Ang; Simon Nicholas; Anthony P Wells
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 12.079

9.  [Correlation of age and intraocular pressure with visual field damage in patients with normal-tension glaucoma].

Authors:  Kenji Nakamoto; Noriko Yasuda; Takumi Fukuda
Journal:  Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi       Date:  2008-04

10.  Ocular Response Analyzer in subjects with and without glaucoma.

Authors:  Michael Sullivan-Mee; Shavon C Billingsley; Amita D Patel; Kathy D Halverson; Brooks R Alldredge; Clifford Qualls
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.973

View more
  8 in total

1.  Impact of corneal parameters on intraocular pressure measurements in different tonometry methods.

Authors:  Aleksandra Zakrzewska; Marta P Wiącek; Anna Machalińska
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 1.779

2.  Comparison of Diaton transpalpebral tonometer with applanation tonometry in keratoconus.

Authors:  Robert Pl Wisse; Natalie Peeters; Saskia M Imhof; Allegonda van der Lelij
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 1.779

3.  Association between Rates of Visual Field Progression and Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Different Tonometers.

Authors:  Bianca N Susanna; Nara G Ogata; Fábio B Daga; Carolina N Susanna; Alberto Diniz-Filho; Felipe A Medeiros
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 12.079

4.  Corneal-compensated intraocular pressure, Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure and their associated factors in the geriatric population, a population-based study.

Authors:  Fereshteh Shokrollahzadeh; Hassan Hashemi; Abbasali Yekta; Hadi Ostadimoghaddam; Ebrahim Jafarzadehpour; Mehdi Khabazkhoob
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 2.029

5.  The role of light in measuring ocular biomechanics.

Authors:  A Wilson; J Marshall; J R Tyrer
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 3.775

6.  Tonographic Effect of Ocular Response Analyzer in Comparison to Goldmann Applanation Tonometry.

Authors:  Martin Zimmermann; Susanne Pitz; Irene Schmidtmann; Norbert Pfeiffer; Joanna Wasielica-Poslednik
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Comparative evaluation of applanation and indentation tonometers in a community ophthalmology setting in Southern India.

Authors:  Swathi Nagarajan; Veerabahu Velayutham; G Ezhumalai
Journal:  Saudi J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-11-19

8.  Corneal Biomechanical Properties of Keratoconic Eyes Following Penetrating Keratoplasty.

Authors:  Hamidu Gobeka; Özlem Barut Selver; Melis Palamar Onay; Sait Eğrilmez; Ayşe Yağcı
Journal:  Turk J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-09-04
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.