Ocular Response Analyzer Measurements in Keratoconus with Normal Central Corneal Thickness Compared with Matched Normal Control Eyes

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

Central corneal thickness measurement by Fourier domain optical coherence tomography, ocular response analyzer and ultrasound pachymetry

Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology ◽

10.1016/j.tjo.2014.08.001 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 4 (4) ◽

pp. 163-169 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Shu-Wen Chang ◽

Po-Fang Su ◽

Andy Y. Lo ◽

Jehn-Yu Huang

Keyword(s):

Optical Coherence Tomography ◽

Central Corneal Thickness ◽

Corneal Thickness ◽

Thickness Measurement ◽

Ocular Response Analyzer ◽

Fourier Domain ◽

Optical Coherence ◽

Ultrasound Pachymetry

Download Full-text

Comparison between different tonometers following intrastromal corneal ring segments implantation

European Journal of Ophthalmology ◽

10.1177/11206721211042546 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 112067212110425

Author(s):

Mennatullah M Elfwwal ◽

Mohamed K Elbasty ◽

Mohamed F Khattab ◽

Malak I ElShazly

Keyword(s):

Intraocular Pressure ◽

Femtosecond Laser ◽

Central Corneal Thickness ◽

Pressure Range ◽

Corneal Thickness ◽

Applanation Tonometry ◽

Ocular Response Analyzer ◽

P Value ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Intrastromal Corneal Ring

Purpose: To compare different intraocular pressure (IOP) readings in corneas with intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) taken by three different tonometers; Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), air puff tonometer, and ocular response analyzer (ORA) corneal-compensated IOP (ORA-IOPcc) and determine the relation of these measurements to different corneal parameters taken by Pentacam. Methods: An observational cross-sectional analytic study included patients who underwent ICRS keraring implantation at 3 months. In each eye, the two rings were placed using the femtosecond laser assisted technique 5.5 or 6 mm from the center. IOP was measured using three different tonometers; GAT, air puff tonometer, and ocular response analyzer (ORA) corneal-compensated IOP (ORA-IOPcc). Results: Fifty eyes of 30 patients (20 males and 10 females) aged 27.56 ± 6.38 years were included. IOP measurements by GAT, air puff tonometer, and ORA-IOPcc were 13.28 ± 2.13 mmHg, 10.47 ± 2.55 mmHg, and 13.19 ± 2.78 mmHg, respectively. Comparisons between air puff and each of GAT and ORA-IOPcc were statistically highly significant ( p-value <0.001). Conclusion: IOP measurements taken by air puff tonometer were significantly lower than those taken by GAT and ORA-IOPcc. These differences were not constant across the pressure range but increased as the pressure values determined using GAT and ORA increased. ORA-IOPcc and GAT showed similar readings. No correlation was found between any of the IOP readings taken by the three tonometers and the central corneal thickness.

Download Full-text

Agreement in central corneal thickness measurement between Corvis ST and ocular response analyzer

International Ophthalmology ◽

10.1007/s10792-020-01436-y ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 40 (10) ◽

pp. 2563-2567

Author(s):

Ramin Salouti ◽

Reza Razeghinejad ◽

Nasrin Masihpour ◽

Maryam Ghoreyshi ◽

M. Hossein Nowroozzadeh

Keyword(s):

Central Corneal Thickness ◽

Corneal Thickness ◽

Thickness Measurement ◽

Ocular Response Analyzer ◽

Corvis St

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Glaucoma ◽

10.1097/ijg.0b013e31815c3ad3 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 17 (5) ◽

pp. 361-365 ◽

Cited By ~ 47

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

Download Full-text

Goldmann applanation tonometer versus ocular response analyzer for measuring intraocular pressure after congenital cataract surgery

European Journal of Ophthalmology ◽

10.1177/1120672118757429 ◽

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.

Download Full-text