EFFECT OF CATARACT EXTRACTION ON IOP BY GOLDMANN APPLANATION TONOMETRY AND A/C DEPTH BY PENTACAM

Aim: To evaluate whether a significant difference exists between the initial and final mean central corneal thickness that might affect Goldmann applanation tonometer recordings of patients with allergic conjunctivitis treated with desonide 0.25% ophthalmic solution, and to determine the effect of desonide on intraocular pressure by using adjusted intraocular pressure values.Methods: This double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial enrolled 30 patients (60 eyes) with allergic conjunctivitis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive desonide to 1 eye (study eye) and preservative-free tear supplement (Tears Naturale Free®) to the other eye (control eye) 3 times daily for 3 weeks. Goldmann applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness of both eyes were recorded on the day of presentation and 3 weeks later.Results: Regression of itching, tearing, conjunctival hyperaemia, and tarsal conjunctival papillary reaction were noted in the study eyes after 3 weeks of treatment. The control eyes showed mild regression of pruritis, tearing, conjunctival hyperaemia, and tarsal conjunctival papillary reaction after 3 weeks. There was a significant difference between the initial and final mean central corneal thickness values for the study eyes (p = 0.003). There were no statistically significant differences between the initial and final mean values of Goldmann applanation tonometry and adjusted intraocular pressure for the study eyes. No statistically significant differences were found between the initial and final mean values of any of the parameters for the control eyes.Conclusion: Inflammation-induced increase in central corneal thickness of patients with allergic conjunctivitis treated with desonide showed statistically significant regression. However, this regression did not significantly affect Goldmann applanation tonometry and adjusted intraocular pressure values of the treated eyes.

Download Full-text

Clinical Comparison of the Icare Tonometer and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry

Journal of Glaucoma ◽

10.1097/ijg.0b013e318133fb32 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

pp. 43-47 ◽

Cited By ~ 91

Author(s):

Nima Pakrou ◽

Tim Gray ◽

Richard Mills ◽

John Landers ◽

Jamie Craig

Keyword(s):

Applanation Tonometry ◽

Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽

Clinical Comparison

Download Full-text

Intraocular pressure measurements in diabetes mellitus

European Journal of Ophthalmology ◽

10.1177/1120672119890517 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 30 (6) ◽

pp. 1432-1439 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text