Optic Disc Planimetry, Corneal Hysteresis, Central Corneal Thickness, and Intraocular Pressure as Risk Factors for Glaucoma

2014 ◽  
Vol 157 (2) ◽  
pp. 441-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Carbonaro ◽  
Pirro G. Hysi ◽  
Samantha J. Fahy ◽  
Abhishek Nag ◽  
Christopher J. Hammond
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Optic Disc ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Hysteresis

Relationship between novel intraocular pressure measurement from Corvis ST and central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis

2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masato Matsuura ◽  
Hiroshi Murata ◽  
Yuri Fujino ◽  
Mieko Yanagisawa ◽  
Yoshitaka Nakao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Biomechanical Properties ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Corneal Hysteresis ◽  
Corneal Resistance Factor ◽  
Corvis St ◽  
The Relationship

AimsCorvis ST (CST) yields biomechanical corrected IOP (bIOP) which is purported to be less dependent on biomechanical properties. In our accompanied paper, it was suggested that the repeatability of bIOP is high. The purpose of the current study was to assess the relationship between intraocular pressure (IOP) measured with CST and central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal hysteresis (CH), in comparison with IOP measured with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and the ocular response analyzer (ORA).MethodsA total of 141 eyes from 141 subjects (35 healthy eyes and 106 glaucomatous eyes) underwent IOP measurements with GAT, CST and ORA. The relationships between IOP measurements (ORA-IOPg, ORA-IOPcc, CST-bIOP and GAT IOP) and biomechanical properties (CCT, CH and corneal resistance factor (CRF)) were analysed using the linear regression analysis.ResultsIOPg, IOPcc and GAT IOP were significantly associated with CCT (p<0.001), whereas bIOP was not significantly associated with CCT (p=0.19). IOPg, bIOP and GAT IOP were significantly associated with CH (IOPg: p<0.001; bIOP: p<0.001; GAT IOP: p=0.0054), whereas IOPcc was not significantly associated with CH (p=0.18). All of IOP records were associated with CRF (p<0.001).ConclusionThe bIOP measurement from CST is independent from CCT, but dependent on CH and CRF.

scholarly journals Combining corneal hysteresis with central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure for glaucoma risk assessment

Eye ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 1349-1356 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Pensyl ◽  
M Sullivan-Mee ◽  
M Torres-Monte ◽  
K Halverson ◽  
C Qualls
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Hysteresis

Goldmann applanation tonometer versus ocular response analyzer for measuring intraocular pressure after congenital cataract surgery

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 582-589
Author(s):  
Sepehr Feizi ◽  
Amir Faramarzi ◽  
Bahareh Kheiri
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Congenital Cataract ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Hysteresis ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Congenital Cataract Surgery

Purpose: To compare intraocular pressure measured using the Goldmann applanation tonometer with that measured using the ocular response analyzer after congenital cataract surgery. Methods: This study included 113 eyes of 64 patients who underwent lensectomy and vitrectomy. In all, 36 eyes remained aphakic after surgery. Intraocular lens implantation was performed at the time of surgery in 47 eyes and secondarily in 30 eyes. Corneal hysteresis, corneal resistance factor, and cornea-compensated intraocular pressure were measured. The influences of independent factors on the difference between the cornea-compensated intraocular pressure and intraocular pressure measured with Goldmann applanation tonometer were investigated using linear regression analyses. Agreement between the two tonometers was investigated using the Bland and Altman and 95% limits of agreement analysis. Results: Central corneal thickness, corneal hysteresis, and corneal resistance factor were 591.2 ± 53.3 µm, 10.83 ± 2.27 mmHg, and 11.36 ± 2.14 mmHg, respectively. Cornea-compensated intraocular pressure (16.75 ± 4.82 mmHg) was significantly higher than intraocular pressure measured with Goldmann applanation tonometer (14.41 ± 2.27 mmHg, p < 0.001). Central corneal thickness (p = 0.02) and corneal hysteresis (p < 0.001) were identified as the main predictors of difference between cornea-compensated intraocular pressure and intraocular pressure measured with Goldmann applanation tonometer readings. A 95% limits of agreement for cornea-compensated intraocular pressure and intraocular pressure measured with Goldmann applanation tonometer was between −4.86 and 9.53 mmHg in the entire group. Cornea-compensated intraocular pressure showed the best agreement with intraocular pressure measured with Goldmann applanation tonometer in the primary pseudophakic subgroup as compared to the other subgroups. Conclusion: The Goldmann applanation tonometer and ocular response analyzer cannot be used interchangeably for measuring intraocular pressure after congenital cataract surgery. The difference between the cornea-compensated intraocular pressure and intraocular pressure measured with Goldmann applanation tonometer was primarily affected by central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis. Among the subgroups, the primary pseudophakic subgroup had the thinnest cornea and the highest corneal hysteresis values and demonstrated the best agreement between the two tonometers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document