scholarly journals Pediatric intraocular pressure measurements: Tonometers, central corneal thickness, and anesthesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (6) ◽  
pp. 810-825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmoud A. Fayed ◽  
Teresa C. Chen
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Pressure Measurements

Intraocular pressure measurements in diabetes mellitus

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1432-1439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Ramm ◽  
Robert Herber ◽  
Eberhard Spoerl ◽  
Lutz E Pillunat ◽  
Naim Terai
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Corvis St

Purpose: To investigate the impact of diabetes mellitus–induced changes on intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry, Ocular Response Analyzer, and Corvis ST. Methods: Measurements were done using Goldmann applanation tonometry, Ocular Response Analyzer, and Corvis ST in 69 diabetic patients. Biomechanical-corrected intraocular pressure values by Ocular Response Analyzer (IOPcc) and Corvis ST (bIOP) were used. In addition, biometry and tomography were performed and information on diabetes mellitus specific factors was collected. Results were compared to an age-matched group of 68 healthy subjects. Results: In diabetes mellitus, Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure (P = 0.193) and central corneal thickness (P = 0.184) were slightly increased. Also, IOPcc (P = 0.075) and bIOP (P = 0.542) showed no significant group difference. In both groups, IOPcc was higher than Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure (P = 0.002, P < 0.001), while bIOP was nearly equal to Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure (P = 0.795, P = 0.323). Central corneal thickness showed a tendency to higher values in poorly controlled than in controlled diabetes mellitus (P = 0.059). Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure correlated to central corneal thickness, while IOPcc and bIOP were independent from central corneal thickness in both groups. All intraocular pressure values showed significant associations to corneal biomechanical parameters. Only in diabetes mellitus, bIOP was correlated to Pachy slope (P = 0.023). Conclusion: In diabetes mellitus, Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure was slightly, but not significantly, increased, which might be caused by a higher central corneal thickness and changes in corneal biomechanical properties. However, intraocular pressure values measured by Ocular Response Analyzer and Corvis ST were not significantly different between diabetes mellitus patients and healthy subjects. The bIOP showed a higher agreement with Goldmann applanation tonometry than IOPcc and was independent from central corneal thickness.

scholarly journals Intraocular Pressure Measurements in Standing Position with a Rebound Tonometer

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (10) ◽  
pp. 701 ◽  
Author(s):  
De Bernardo ◽  
Borrelli ◽  
Cembalo ◽  
Rosa
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Supine Position ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Body Position ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Standing Position ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Healthy Individuals ◽  
Lying Down ◽  
Axial Eye Length

Background and Objectives: It has been established that body position can play an important role in intraocular pressure (IOP) fluctuation. IOP has been previously shown to increase significantly when lying down, relative to sitting; this type of investigation has not been extensively reported for the standing (ST) position. Therefore, this study aims to look for eventual significant IOP changes while ST, sitting, and lying down. Materials and Methods: An Icare PRO was used to measure the IOP of 120 eyes of 60 healthy individuals, with age ranging from 21 to 55 years (mean 29.22 ± 9.12 years), in sitting, supine and ST positions; IOP was measured again, 5 minutes after standing (ST-5m). Results: Mean IOP difference between sitting and ST position was 0.39 ± 1.93 mmHg (95% CI: 0.04 to 0.74 mmHg) (p = 0.027); between sitting and ST-5m, it was −0.48 ± 1.79 mmHg (95% CI: −0.8 to −0.16 mmHg) (p = 0.004); between the sitting and supine position, it was −1.16±1.9 mmHg (95% CI: −1.5 to −0.82 mmHg) (p < 0.001); between the supine and ST position, it was 1.55 ± 2.04 mmHg (95% CI: 1.18 to 1.92 mmHg) (p < 0.001); between supine and ST-5m, it was 0.68 ± 1.87 mmHg (95% CI: 0.34 to 1.02 mmHg) (p < 0.001); and between ST-5m and ST, it was 0.94 ± 1.95 mmHg (95% CI: 0.58 to 1.29 mmHg) (p < 0.001). Mean axial eye length was 24.45 mm (95% CI: 24.22 to 24.69 mm), and mean central corneal thickness was 535.30 μm (95% CI: 529.44 to 541.19 μm). Conclusion: Increased IOP in the ST-5m position suggests that IOP measurements should be performed in this position too. The detection of higher IOP values in the ST-5m position than in the sitting one, may explain the presence of glaucoma damage or progression in apparently normal-tension or compensated patients.

Clinical Profile of Myopic Patients as a Risk Factor for Primary Open Angle Glaucoma - A Prospective Observational Study in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (33) ◽  
pp. 3084-3089
Author(s):  
Ram Kumar Jaiswal ◽  
Ramyash Singh Yadav ◽  
Mridula Ranjan ◽  
Dipti Wahi ◽  
Chiranji Rai
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
High Myopia ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Primary Open Angle Glaucoma ◽  
Open Angle Glaucoma ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Open Angle

BACKGROUND Myopia is a complex trait including both genetic and environmental factors as well as gene-environment interactions. It has been recognized as a risk factor for development of glaucoma. Both Myopia and raised IOP are known to increase mechanical stress at optic nerve head leading to glaucomatous nerve damage. This study intends to evaluate the clinical profile of myopic subjects and its correlation with Primary open angle glaucoma (POAG). METHODS A prospective observational study done from November 2019 to December 2020 after taking proper informed consent and ethical clearance. 164 eyes of 96 patients studied were divided into three groups, Group 1: low myopia (< -3.00D), Group 2: moderate myopia (-3.00 D to -5.75 D), Group 3: high myopia (≥ -6.00 D). A complete ocular examination was performed. Intraocular pressure was measured using Goldmann applanation tonometer. Visual field analysis using Humphrey automated perimetry was done in patients with suspected primary open angle glaucoma (POAG). Angle parameters and central corneal thickness (CCT) were measured using anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT). RESULTS 164 eyes of 96 Myopic subjects were studied with no dropout during study period. Mean age was 46.05 yr. (range: 25-75 yr.). The refraction ranged from -0.50 DS to -17.00 DS. There was no statistically significant difference between Intraocular pressure (IOP), Central corneal thickness (CCT), corrected IOP and Nasal and Temporal Trabecular-iris Angle (TIA) between male and female of same age group. Mean IOP and mean CCT were found to vary significantly with age and with higher degree of myopia. Corrected IOP, Nasal and Temporal TIA increase significantly with higher degree of myopia. Cup-disc ratio (CDR) was found to be significantly higher in patients with moderate to high degree of Myopia. CONCLUSIONS Myopia is an important risk factor for development of primary open angle glaucoma, with its incidence increasing in patients with moderate to high myopia. KEYWORDS Myopia, Primary Open Angle Glaucoma, Intraocular Pressure, Central Corneal Thickness, Trabecular Iris Angle

scholarly journals Correlation between central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure peak and fluctuation during the water drinking test in glaucoma patients

Clinics ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 65 (10) ◽  
pp. 967-970 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Lacerda Furlanetto ◽  
Antonio Carlos Facio Jr ◽  
Marcelo Hatanaka ◽  
Remo Susanna Junior
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Water Drinking ◽  
Pressure Peak ◽  
Drinking Test ◽  
Water Drinking Test
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document