scholarly journals The Difference in Intraocular Pressure before and after Visual Field Test Measured by Rebound Tonometer

2020 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Joong Hyun Park ◽  
Jin Young Kim ◽  
Eun Kyoung Lee ◽  
Hye Jin Lee ◽  
Jin Ho Jeong ◽  
...  
2022 ◽  
pp. 112067212110732
Author(s):  
Aya Taniguchi ◽  
Tatsuya Yunoki ◽  
Mitsuya Otsuka ◽  
Atsushi Hayashi

Purpose To examine changes in parameters of the visual field test before and after blepharoptosis surgery in patients with glaucoma. Methods Twenty-three eyes of 14 glaucoma patients who underwent blepharoptosis surgery at Toyama University Hospital between July 2015 and September 2020 were included in this study. Pre- and post-operative values for the mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD) and total deviation (TD) of the upper or lower hemi-visual field in the Humphrey visual field test, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), and margin reflex distance (MRD)-1 were compared. Results MRD-1 showed a significant improvement after blepharoptosis surgery (preoperative MRD-1: 1.0 ± 0.82 mm, postoperative MRD-1: 3.26 ± 0.66 mm, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in BCVA, IOP, MD and PSD values before and after surgery. On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in the superior TD (preoperative: −11.29 ± 6.57 dB, postoperative: −9.88 ± 7.31 dB, p = 0.044) although no significant difference was detected in the inferior TD postoperatively. The preoperative parameters of 2 groups (improvement and non-improvement groups of postoperative superior TD) were compared. Preoperative MD and superior TD were significantly lower in the improvement group (p = 0.03, p = 0.004, respectively), although there was no significant difference in preoperative PSD and inferior TD between the two groups. Conclusion In glaucoma patients, blepharoptosis may interfere with accurate visual field assessment, especially of superior TD.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nisha Nesaratnam ◽  
Peter B. M. Thomas ◽  
Ramez Kirollos ◽  
Algis J. Vingrys ◽  
George Y. X. Kong ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco A. Miranda ◽  
David B. Henson ◽  
Cecilia Fenerty ◽  
Susmito Biswas ◽  
Tariq Aslam

2012 ◽  
Vol 53 (13) ◽  
pp. 8396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryo Asaoka ◽  
Richard A. Russell ◽  
Rizwan Malik ◽  
David P. Crabb ◽  
David F. Garway-Heath

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1349-1355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mercedes Molero-Senosiaín ◽  
Laura Morales-Fernández ◽  
Federico Saenz-Francés ◽  
Julian García-Feijoo ◽  
Jose María Martínez-de-la-Casa

Objectives: To analyze the reproducibility of the new iC100 rebound tonometer, to compare its results with the applanation tonometry and iCare PRO and to evaluate the preference between them. Materials and methods: For the study of reproducibility, 15 eyes of 15 healthy Caucasian subjects were included. Three measurements were taken each day in three separate sessions. For the comparative study, 150 eyes of 150 Caucasian subjects were included (75 normal subjects and 75 patients with glaucoma). Three consecutive measurements were collected with each tonometer, randomizing the order of use. The discomfort caused by each tonometer was evaluated using the visual analogue scale. Results: No statistically significant differences were detected between sessions. In the comparison between tonometers, the measurements with iC100 were statistically lower than those of Perkins (−1.35 ± 0.417, p = 0.004) and that iCare PRO (−1.41 ± 0.417, p = 0.002). The difference between PRO and Perkins was not statistically significant ( p = 0.990). The mean time of measurement (in seconds) with iC100 was significantly lower than with Perkins (6.74 ± 1.46 vs 15.53 ± 2.01, p < 0.001) and that PRO (6.74 ± 1.46 vs 11.53 ± 1.85, p < 0.001). Visual analogue scale score with iC100 was lower than Perkins (1.33 ± 0.99 vs 1.73 ± 1.10, p < 0.05). In total, 61.7% preferred iC100 against Perkins. Conclusion: The reproducibility of this instrument has been proven good. iC100 underestimates intraocular pressure compared to applanation tonometry at normal values and tends to overestimate it in high intraocular pressure values. Most of the subjects preferred iC100 tonometer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document