Literature DB >> 30140637

Comparison among Ocular Response Analyzer, Corvis ST and Goldmann applanation tonometry in healthy children.

Ramin Salouti1, Ali Agha Alishiri2, Reza Gharebaghi1, Mostafa Naderi2, Khosrow Jadidi2, Ahmad Shojaei-Baghini2, Mohammadreza Talebnejad1, Zahra Nasiri3, Seyedmorteza Hosseini2, Fatemeh Heidary4.   

Abstract

AIM: To explore the relationship between different parameters of Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and Corvis ST (CST) in a sample of healthy Iranian school-aged children and the relationship between parameters of these 2 instruments against intraocular pressure (IOP), measured by the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT-IOP), age and gender, and find possible correlation between ORA and CST with GAT.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 90 healthy children. A general interview and complete eye examination were performed. Following successful GAT-IOP measurement, ORA and CST were conducted. The CST parameters were A 1/2 length (A1L, A2L), A 1/2 velocity (A1V, A2V), highest concavity deformation amplitude (HCDA), radius of curvature (RoC), peak distance (PD), central corneal thickness (CCT) and IOP. The ORA parameters were corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOP-G) and corneal compensated IOP (IOP-CC). Extracted data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science software.
RESULTS: Totally 39 males with age of 9.08±1.60 (6-12)y and 51 females with age of 8.96±1.55 (6-13)y were included. Many CST parameters were significantly correlated with CH, CRF, IOP-G and IOP-CC. Some CST parameters had a significant correlation with GAT-IOP, including IOP-CST in both eyes and HCDA, A2L, PD, and RoC in the left eye, but none with age, except A2L in the right eye. The CRF measurement showed a significant correlation with GAT-IOP in both eyes and CH in the right eye, yet, none with age. Among all CST and ORA parameters, CCT-CST in both eyes and A1L in right eye had a significant correlation with gender, although this was a negligible negative correlation. Comparison of mean IOP values by different devices showed a significantly highest IOP overestimation by CST and lowest by IOP-CC compared with GAT. Also, IOP-G versus IOP-CST significantly had the lowest IOP overestimation among others. Overall, either low positive correlation or negligible correlation was found between IOP measurements by 3 instruments.
CONCLUSION: The study finds the highest IOP overestimation by CST and lowest by IOP-CC compared with GAT. Overall, either low positive correlation or negligible correlation is found between IOP measurements by the 3 instruments.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Corvis ST; Goldmann applanation tonometer; Ocular Response Analyzer; children; intraocular pressure

Year:  2018        PMID: 30140637      PMCID: PMC6090110          DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2018.08.13

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


  28 in total

1.  Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer.

Authors:  David A Luce
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.351

2.  Comparison between Corvis and other tonometers in healthy eyes.

Authors:  Michele Lanza; Stefania Iaccarino; Michela Cennamo; Carlo Irregolare; Vito Romano; Ugo Antonello Gironi Carnevale
Journal:  Cont Lens Anterior Eye       Date:  2014-11-22       Impact factor: 3.077

3.  Corneal biomechanical properties and intraocular pressure measurement in patients with nanophthalmos.

Authors:  Cigdem Altan; Necip Kara; Okkes Baz; Banu Satana; Ahmet Demirok; Omer Faruk Yilmaz
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  Effect of aging on corneal biomechanical parameters using the ocular response analyzer.

Authors:  Kazutaka Kamiya; Kimiya Shimizu; Fumiko Ohmoto
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  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

6.  Clinical Evaluation of Methods to Correct Intraocular Pressure Measurements by the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, Ocular Response Analyzer, and Corvis ST Tonometer for the Effects of Corneal Stiffness Parameters.

Authors:  FangJun Bao; ZiXu Huang; JinHai Huang; JunJie Wang; ManLi Deng; LinNa Li; AYong Yu; QinMei Wang; Ahmed Elsheikh
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 7.  Glaucoma in children: are we making progress?

Authors:  Albert W Biglan
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.220

8.  Accuracy of Goldmann, ocular response analyser, Pascal and TonoPen XL tonometry in keratoconic and normal eyes.

Authors:  S P Mollan; J S Wolffsohn; M Nessim; M Laiquzzaman; S Sivakumar; S Hartley; S Shah
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-08-29       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 9.  A Comprehensive Meta-analysis on Intra Ocular Pressure and Central Corneal Thickness in Healthy Children.

Authors:  Majid Farvardin; Fatemeh Heidary; Kourosh Sayehmiri; Reza Gharebaghi; Mahmoud Jabbarvand Behrooz
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.429

10.  Intraocular pressure in a cohort of healthy eastern European schoolchildren: variations in method and corneal thickness.

Authors:  Patrycja Krzyżanowska-Berkowska; Magdalena Asejczyk-Widlicka; Barbara Pierscionek
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-12-02       Impact factor: 2.209

View more
  6 in total

1.  Prevalence of Visual Impairment in School Children.

Authors:  Reza Gharebaghi; Fatemeh Heidary
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2020-02-02

Review 2.  A review of imaging modalities for detecting early keratoconus.

Authors:  Xuemin Zhang; Saleha Z Munir; Syed A Sami Karim; Wuqaas M Munir
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  Observation seasonal variation of intraocular pressure in young healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Na Liao; Yan-Qian Xie; Guang-Yun Mao; Fan-Jun Bao; Zhong Lin; Hui-Lyu Jiang; Yuan-Bo Liang
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 1.779

Review 4.  Advances in Biomechanical Parameters for Screening of Refractive Surgery Candidates: A Review of the Literature, Part III.

Authors:  Majid Moshirfar; Mahsaw N Motlagh; Michael S Murri; Hamed Momeni-Moghaddam; Yasmyne C Ronquillo; Phillip C Hoopes
Journal:  Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol       Date:  2019

5.  Age-Related Changes in Corneal Epithelial Thickness Measured with an Ultrasound Pachymeter.

Authors:  Ahmet Colakoglu; Cemile Banu Cosar
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2022-09-28       Impact factor: 3.829

6.  Author's Reply.

Authors:  Mohammad Reza Talebnejad; M Hossein Nowroozzadeh; Hamideh Mahdaviazad
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2020-02-02
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.