Effect of Central Corneal Thickness and Corneal Hysteresis on Tonometry as Measured by Dynamic Contour Tonometry, Ocular Response Analyzer, and Goldmann Tonometry in Glaucomatous Eyes

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 361-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hager Annette ◽  
Loge Kristina ◽  
Schroeder Bernd ◽  
Füllhas Mark-Oliver ◽  
Wiegand Wolfgang
Keyword(s):  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Hysteresis ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer ◽  
Dynamic Contour Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Tonometry

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.

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.

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 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

scholarly journals Factors Affecting the Central Corneal Thickness in Nepalese Population

1970 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
ST Godar ◽  
KR Kaini ◽  
JB Khattri
Keyword(s):  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Intra Ocular Pressure ◽  
Goldmann Tonometry ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Ocular Pressure

Background: Intra Ocular Pressure (IOP) is an important parameter for the detection and monitoring of glaucoma. Central corneal thickness (CCT) can influence the IOP estimated with Goldmann tonometry. A thick cornea overestimates the IOP and thin underestimates it. So, decreased CCT may lead to underdiagnosis and undertreatment of glaucoma and increased CCT may lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of glaucoma. The aim of the study is to identify the factors affecting the CCT in Nepalese population. Methods: A hospital based cross-sectional study which enrolled 152 subjects from period of January 2009 to May 2010. All subjects underwent ophthalmological examinations. CCT was measured with ultrasonic pachymeter and intraocular pressure was measured with Goldmann applanation tonometer. Results: The mean±SD CCT of right and left eye was 538±32 and 540±30μm respectively. CCT decreased with increasing age. Age and intra ocular pressure was significantly correlated with CCT. There was no significant correlation of gender and ethnicity with CCT. Conclusion: CCT decreased with increasing age. CCT was significantly correlated with age and intra ocular pressure but not with gender and ethnicity. Keywords: Nepalese; central corneal thickness; ultrasound pachymeter DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/njms.v1i1.5788   Nepal Journal of Medical Sciences. 2012; 1(1): 7-10.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document