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.

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 Influence and reliability of lower-limb arterial occlusion pressure at different body positions

PeerJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. e4697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Hughes ◽  
Owen Jeffries ◽  
Mark Waldron ◽  
Ben Rosenblatt ◽  
Conor Gissane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supine Position ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Body Position ◽  
Arterial Occlusion ◽  
Standing Position ◽  
Healthy Individuals ◽  
Occlusion Pressure ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Subsequent Application ◽  
Arterial Occlusion Pressure

Background Total arterial occlusive pressure (AOP) is used to prescribe pressures for surgery, blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) and ischemic preconditioning (IPC). AOP is often measured in a supine position; however, the influence of body position on AOP measurement is unknown and may influence level of occlusion in different positions during BFR and IPC. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the influence of body position on AOP. Methods Fifty healthy individuals (age = 29 ± 6 y) underwent AOP measurements on the dominant lower-limb in supine, seated and standing positions in a randomised order. AOP was measured automatically using the Delfi Personalised Tourniquet System device, with each measurement separated by 5 min of rest. Results Arterial occlusive pressure was significantly lower in the supine position compared to the seated position (187.00 ± 32.5 vs 204.00 ± 28.5 mmHg, p < 0.001) and standing position (187.00 ± 32.5 vs 241.50 ± 49.3 mmHg, p < 0.001). AOP was significantly higher in the standing position compared to the seated position (241.50 ± 49.3 vs 204.00 ± 28.5 mmHg, p < 0.001). Discussion Arterial occlusive pressure measurement is body position dependent, thus for accurate prescription of occlusion pressure during surgery, BFR and IPC, AOP should be measured in the position intended for subsequent application of occlusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document