Intraocular Pressure Measurement Using Ocular Response Analyzer, Dynamic Contour Tonometer, and Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis ST
Purpose. To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), ocular response analyzer (ORA), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and Corvis ST (CST) in healthy subjects. Methods. In a prospective, observational study, IOP measurements with GAT (GAT-IOPc), ORA (...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2019-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Ophthalmology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/3879651 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832561168197091328 |
|---|---|
| author | Lisa Ramm Robert Herber Eberhard Spoerl Frederik Raiskup Lutz E. Pillunat Naim Terai |
| author_facet | Lisa Ramm Robert Herber Eberhard Spoerl Frederik Raiskup Lutz E. Pillunat Naim Terai |
| author_sort | Lisa Ramm |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose. To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), ocular response analyzer (ORA), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and Corvis ST (CST) in healthy subjects. Methods. In a prospective, observational study, IOP measurements with GAT (GAT-IOPc), ORA (IOPcc), DCT (DCT-IOP), and CST (bIOP) were performed and analyzed in 94 healthy subjects. Results. Mean age of the participants was 45.6 ± 17.2 years (range 18 to 81 years). Mean GAT-IOPc was 12.9 ± 2.4 mmHg, mean DCT-IOP was 16.1 ± 2.6 mmHg, and mean IOPcc was 15.6 ± 3.3 mmHg. DCT-IOP and IOPcc were significantly higher than GAT-IOPc (P<0.001). Mean bIOP was 13.5 ± 2.4 mmHg that was slightly higher but not significantly different from GAT-IOPc (P=0.146). Correlation analysis of IOP values and central corneal thickness (CCT) revealed a negative correlation between GAT-IOPc and CCT (r = −0.347; P=0.001). However, IOPcc, DCT-IOP, and bIOP showed no significant correlation to CCT. Only bIOP revealed a weak but significant age dependency (r = 0.321, P=0.002). Conclusion. All tonometry devices showed a good agreement of biomechanical corrected IOP values with GAT-IOPc. As no influence of CCT on IOPcc, DCT-IOP, and bIOP was detectable, the used correction algorithms appear to be appropriate in these tonometers in the clinical setting. The highest agreement was found between GAT-IOPc and bIOP. However, bIOP weakly correlated with participants’ age. Further studies are needed to elucidate the role of bIOP for IOP measurement. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-af3eae1258294e91aa09f912138a8714 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-004X 2090-0058 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj-art-af3eae1258294e91aa09f912138a87142025-02-03T01:25:51ZengWileyJournal of Ophthalmology2090-004X2090-00582019-01-01201910.1155/2019/38796513879651Intraocular Pressure Measurement Using Ocular Response Analyzer, Dynamic Contour Tonometer, and Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis STLisa Ramm0Robert Herber1Eberhard Spoerl2Frederik Raiskup3Lutz E. Pillunat4Naim Terai5Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, GermanyDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, GermanyDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, GermanyDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, GermanyDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, GermanyDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, GermanyPurpose. To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), ocular response analyzer (ORA), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and Corvis ST (CST) in healthy subjects. Methods. In a prospective, observational study, IOP measurements with GAT (GAT-IOPc), ORA (IOPcc), DCT (DCT-IOP), and CST (bIOP) were performed and analyzed in 94 healthy subjects. Results. Mean age of the participants was 45.6 ± 17.2 years (range 18 to 81 years). Mean GAT-IOPc was 12.9 ± 2.4 mmHg, mean DCT-IOP was 16.1 ± 2.6 mmHg, and mean IOPcc was 15.6 ± 3.3 mmHg. DCT-IOP and IOPcc were significantly higher than GAT-IOPc (P<0.001). Mean bIOP was 13.5 ± 2.4 mmHg that was slightly higher but not significantly different from GAT-IOPc (P=0.146). Correlation analysis of IOP values and central corneal thickness (CCT) revealed a negative correlation between GAT-IOPc and CCT (r = −0.347; P=0.001). However, IOPcc, DCT-IOP, and bIOP showed no significant correlation to CCT. Only bIOP revealed a weak but significant age dependency (r = 0.321, P=0.002). Conclusion. All tonometry devices showed a good agreement of biomechanical corrected IOP values with GAT-IOPc. As no influence of CCT on IOPcc, DCT-IOP, and bIOP was detectable, the used correction algorithms appear to be appropriate in these tonometers in the clinical setting. The highest agreement was found between GAT-IOPc and bIOP. However, bIOP weakly correlated with participants’ age. Further studies are needed to elucidate the role of bIOP for IOP measurement.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/3879651 |
| spellingShingle | Lisa Ramm Robert Herber Eberhard Spoerl Frederik Raiskup Lutz E. Pillunat Naim Terai Intraocular Pressure Measurement Using Ocular Response Analyzer, Dynamic Contour Tonometer, and Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis ST Journal of Ophthalmology |
| title | Intraocular Pressure Measurement Using Ocular Response Analyzer, Dynamic Contour Tonometer, and Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis ST |
| title_full | Intraocular Pressure Measurement Using Ocular Response Analyzer, Dynamic Contour Tonometer, and Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis ST |
| title_fullStr | Intraocular Pressure Measurement Using Ocular Response Analyzer, Dynamic Contour Tonometer, and Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis ST |
| title_full_unstemmed | Intraocular Pressure Measurement Using Ocular Response Analyzer, Dynamic Contour Tonometer, and Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis ST |
| title_short | Intraocular Pressure Measurement Using Ocular Response Analyzer, Dynamic Contour Tonometer, and Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis ST |
| title_sort | intraocular pressure measurement using ocular response analyzer dynamic contour tonometer and scheimpflug analyzer corvis st |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/3879651 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lisaramm intraocularpressuremeasurementusingocularresponseanalyzerdynamiccontourtonometerandscheimpfluganalyzercorvisst AT robertherber intraocularpressuremeasurementusingocularresponseanalyzerdynamiccontourtonometerandscheimpfluganalyzercorvisst AT eberhardspoerl intraocularpressuremeasurementusingocularresponseanalyzerdynamiccontourtonometerandscheimpfluganalyzercorvisst AT frederikraiskup intraocularpressuremeasurementusingocularresponseanalyzerdynamiccontourtonometerandscheimpfluganalyzercorvisst AT lutzepillunat intraocularpressuremeasurementusingocularresponseanalyzerdynamiccontourtonometerandscheimpfluganalyzercorvisst AT naimterai intraocularpressuremeasurementusingocularresponseanalyzerdynamiccontourtonometerandscheimpfluganalyzercorvisst |