Influence of Corneal Thickness on Comparative Intraocular Pressure Measurements with Goldmann and Non-Contact Tonometers in Keratoconus

2003 ◽  
Vol 220 (12) ◽  
pp. 843-847 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
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 The Effect of Corneal Thickness, Densitometry and Curvature on Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Applanation, Rebound and Dynamic Contour Tonometry

Vision ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Marco Antonio de Castro Olyntho Junior ◽  
Lucas Bertazzi Augusto ◽  
Carolina P. B. Gracitelli ◽  
Andrew J. Tatham
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Corneal Astigmatism ◽  
Dynamic Contour Tonometry ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Corneal Densitometry ◽  
The Relationship

Evaluate the effect of corneal thickness, densitometry and curvature on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), non-contact tonometry (NCT), rebound tonometry (RT), and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT). A cross-sectional prospective study involving 40 participants was performed. Corneal measurements were obtained using Pentacam (Oculus GMbH, Wetzlar, Germany), densitometry was measured at annuli of 0–2, 2–6, 6–10 and 10–12 mm. The relationship between corneal thickness (central, 4 and 6 mm), corneal astigmatism and corneal densitometry and IOP was examined. There was a significant relationship between corneal thickness (central, 4 and 6 mm) and GAT180, GAT90, RT, and NCT (P < 0.001 for all comparisons) but not for DCT. Higher corneal densitometry (6–10 mm and 10–12 mm zones) was associated with higher IOP from GAT180 and GAT90, and higher densitometry in the 6–10 mm zone correlated with higher IOP from NCT, however corneal densitometry increased with age. Accounting for age, the relationship between corneal densitometry and IOP measurements was not significant. In eyes with greater corneal astigmatism there was a greater difference between GAT90 and GAT180 measurements. IOP measurements may be affected by corneal thickness, densitometry and curvature. DCT was less affected by properties of the cornea compared to other devices.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document