Literature DB >> 22940796

A comparison between Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry after photorefractive keratectomy.

Afshin Lotfi Sadigh1, Rohollah F Fouladi, Hassan Hashemi, Amir Houshang Beheshtnejad.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The intraocular pressure (IOP) could be measured by both Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT). Although these two methods have been discussed widely after laser-assisted sub-epithelial keratectomy (LASIK), there is little data in the cases undergoing photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). We aimed to compare the changes of IOP measurements obtained by GAT and DCT after PRK for myopia/myopic astigmatism.
METHODS: This prospective study enrolled 77 candidates (154 eyes) for PRK to correct myopia or myopic astigmatism and 30 matched patients (30 eyes) with myopia or myopic astigmatism who served as controls. Changes of the IOP measurements (ΔIOP) obtained by GAT and DCT before and at 6 months after PRK in the operated eyes, and at baseline and 6 months later in the controls, were documented. Changes of the central corneal thickness (ΔCCT) were determined in the same fashion.
RESULTS: The mean IOP readings obtained by DCT were comparable before and at 6 months after procedure (18.34 ± 3.03 mmHg and 17.87 ± 2.61 mmHg respectively, p = 0.41); whereas the mean IOP reading obtained by GAT decreased significantly 6 months postoperatively (17.92 ± 3.63 mmHg and 16.25 ± 2.66 mmHg, p < 0.001). A significant correlation was present between the ΔIOP obtained by GAT and ΔCCT (r = 0.61, p < 0.001). Similar correlation was not significant between the DCT-obtained ΔIOP and the ΔCCT (r = 0.07, p = 0.44). The mean ΔIOP obtained by GAT was significantly higher in the operated eyes than in the controls (-1.54 ± 1.45 vs 0.07 ± 0.44 mmHg, p = 0.02). The mean DCT-obtained ΔIOP was just marginally insignificant between the operated and nonoperated eyes (-0.63 ± 0.59 vs 0.02 ± 0.38 mmHg respectively; p = 0.09).
CONCLUSIONS: The authors recommend DCT after PRK in the cases with myopia or myopic astigmatism.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22940796     DOI: 10.1007/s00417-012-2142-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  29 in total

1.  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

2.  Standardizing the measurement of intraocular pressure for clinical research. Guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum.

Authors:  M A Kass
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 12.079

3.  Correction of intraocular pressure for changes in central corneal thickness following photorefractive keratectomy.

Authors:  R Munger; W G Hodge; G Mintsioulis; P J Agapitos; W B Jackson; K F Damji
Journal:  Can J Ophthalmol       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 1.882

Review 4.  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

5.  Change in intraocular pressure measurements after LASIK the effect of the refractive correction and the lamellar flap.

Authors:  Daniel H Chang; R Doyle Stulting
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 12.079

6.  Intraocular pressure after excimer laser myopic refractive surgery.

Authors:  R Montés-Micó; W N Charman
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  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

8.  Clinical comparison of pascal dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in asymmetric open-angle glaucoma.

Authors:  Michael Sullivan-Mee; Kathy D Halverson; Clifford Qualls
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry and their relationship to corneal properties, refractive error, and ocular pulse amplitude.

Authors:  Dina H Erickson; Denise Goodwin; Michael Rollins; Amber Belaustegui; Chad Anderson
Journal:  Optometry       Date:  2009-04

10.  Changes in intraocular pressure after laser in situ keratomileusis.

Authors:  K M Rashad; A A Bahnassy
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2001 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.573

View more
  4 in total

1.  Corneal Biomechanical Properties after FS-LASIK with Residual Bed Thickness Less Than 50% of the Original Corneal Thickness.

Authors:  Haixia Zhang; Muhammad Ahmad Khan; Di Zhang; Xiao Qin; Ding Lin; Lin Li
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 1.909

2.  Intraocular Pressure Calculation in Myopic Patients After Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis.

Authors:  Hazem Helmy; Omar Hashem
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-02-21

3.  A clinical method for estimating the modulus of elasticity of the human cornea in vivo.

Authors:  David C Pye
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  A retrospective analysis of the postoperative use of loteprednol etabonate gel 0.5% following laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy surgery.

Authors:  Clifford L Salinger; Michael Gordon; Mitchell A Jackson; Theodore Perl; Eric Donnenfeld
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-11-06
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.