Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Difference of Intraocular Pressure Values Between Eyes with and without Glaucomatous Damage in Thin Corneas

被引:1
|
作者
Akkan, J. C. Umurhan [1 ]
Akkan, F. [2 ]
Akcay, B. I. Sezgin [3 ]
Ayintap, E. [1 ]
Tuncer, K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Bezmialem Vakif Univ, Fak Med, Augenklin, TR-34093 Istanbul, Turkey
[2] Lehr & Forsch Krankenhaus, Augenklin Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
[3] Lehr & Forsch Krankenhaus, Augenklin Umraniye, Istanbul, Turkey
关键词
intraocular pressure; Goldmann tonometry; dynamic contour tonometry; glaucoma; OPEN-ANGLE GLAUCOMA; THICKNESS; HEALTHY; AGE;
D O I
10.1055/s-0041-104772
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Background: To examine the differences in intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in subjects with thin corneas and to correlate these with structural and functional parameters of glaucoma damage. Patients and Methods: One hundred and thirty participants (130 eyes) with central corneal thickness lower than 500 mu m were included in five groups in this cross-sectional observational study: 52 eyes with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG), 19 eyes with normal tension glaucoma (NTG), 27 eyes with ocular hypertension (OHT), 21 participants suspected of having glaucoma (GS), and 11 healthy subjects. The measurements were obtained with GAT and DCT in a masked fashion. The corrected GAT-IOP for central corneal thickness (CCT), the difference between DCT and GAT (Delta IOP = DCT-GAT) and corrected Delta IOP (corrected Delta IOP = DCT-corrected GAT) were calculated. Age, mean deviation (MD) from the most recent reliable visual field examination, average retinal nerve fibre layer thickness (RNFL), cup-to-disc ratio (CDR), ocular pulse amplitude (OPA), and treatment status were recorded for statistical analysis. Results: In all of the subjects (n = 130), the mean DCT, GAT and corrected GAT values were 17.6 +/- 3.4 mmHg, 13.2 +/- 3.8 mmHg, and 15.5 +/- 2.1 mmHg, respectively. Delta IOP and corrected Delta IOP were 4.4 +/- 2 mmHg and 1.7 +/- 2 mmHg, respectively. Delta IOP was correlated negatively with MD (rs = -0.32, p < 0.0001) and average RNFL thickness (r = -0.46, p < 0.0001) and positively with CDR (rs = 0.50, p < 0.0001). The mean IOP measured by GAT differed statistically significantly between eyes with glaucoma (n = 71, POAG and NTG) and eyes without damage (n = 59; OHT, GS, and healthy) (p < 0.0001), whereas the mean IOP by DCT did not (p = 0.935). The mean Delta IOP values were also statistically significantly higher in the glaucomatous group, with and without correction for CCT (p < 0.001). OPA and glaucoma diagnoses statistically significantly predicted Delta IOP (R-2 = 0.41, F-2.127 = 47.46, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Greater underestimation of IOP by GAT was observed in the glaucomatous eyes with thin corneas. Performing DCT on patients with thin corneas might be advantageous in establishing the need for more aggressive treatment.
引用
收藏
页码:1190 / 1197
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma practice
    Halkiadakis, Ioannis
    Patsea, Eleni
    Chatzimichali, Katerina
    Skouriotis, Sotiris
    Chalkidou, Sonia
    Amariotakis, Georgios
    Papakonstadinou, Dimitrios
    Theodossiadis, George
    Amariotakis, Apostolos
    Georgopoulos, Gerasimos
    ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2009, 87 (03) : 323 - 328
  • [42] A comparison between Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry after photorefractive keratectomy
    Sadigh, Afshin Lotfi
    Fouladi, Rohollah F.
    Hashemi, Hassan
    Beheshtnejad, Amir Houshang
    GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2013, 251 (02) : 603 - 608
  • [43] Overestimation of Intraocular Pressure by Goldmann Applanation Tonometry Without Astigmatic Correction
    Stewart, Rosalind M. K.
    Wishart, Peter K.
    Kaye, Stephen B.
    JAMA OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2016, 134 (03)
  • [44] Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: challenging the gold standard
    Bochmann, Frank
    Kaufmann, Claude
    Thiel, Michael A.
    EXPERT REVIEW OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2010, 5 (06) : 743 - 749
  • [46] Assessment of intraocular pressure measured by Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer, Goldmann Applanation Tonometry, and Dynamic Contour Tonometry in healthy individuals
    Ouyang, Ping-Bo
    Li, Cong-Yi
    Zhu, Xiao-Hua
    Duan, Xuan-Chu
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2012, 5 (01) : 102 - 107
  • [47] Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry following penetrating keratoplasty
    Kandarakis, Artemios
    Soumplis, Vasileios
    Pitsas, Christos
    Kandarakis, Stylianos
    Halikias, Jiannis
    Karagiannis, Dimitrios
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY-JOURNAL CANADIEN D OPHTALMOLOGIE, 2010, 45 (05): : 489 - 493
  • [48] Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in African American subjects
    Medeiros, Felipe A.
    Sample, Pamela A.
    Weinreb, Robert N.
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2007, 114 (04) : 658 - 665
  • [50] The Difference Between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Pascal Dynamic Contour Tonometry in Both Normal and Open Angle Glaucoma Patients
    Giovingo, Michael
    Latina, Mark A.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2014, 55 (13)