Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements using rebound (TonoVet®) and applanation (TonoPen-XL®) tonometry in clinically normal alpacas (Vicugña pacos)

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica E. McDonald ◽  
Amy M. Knollinger ◽  
D. Dustin Dees ◽  
Nicole E. MacLaren
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Clinically Normal ◽  
Vicugna Pacos

scholarly journals Ophthalmology of clinically normal alpacas (Vicugna pacos) in the United Kingdom: a cross-sectional study

2020 ◽  
Vol 186 (16) ◽  
pp. e7-e7
Author(s):  
Josephine Faulkner ◽  
David Leonard Williams ◽  
Karin Mueller
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Clinically Normal ◽  
Vicugna Pacos ◽  
Schirmer Tear Test ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Uk

BackgroundAlpacas are being more frequently presented to veterinarians in the UK. It is important to validate whether published normal ocular parameters are consistent with the alpaca population in the UK.MethodsOphthalmic examinations were performed on healthy alpacas (Vicugna pacos) from three farms in East Anglia, UK.ResultsOn direct ophthalmoscopy of 35 alpacas, there was a 50 per cent prevalence of opacities within the lens in alpacas older than two years old (n=8/16). There was a 36.8 per cent prevalence of persistent hyaloid arteries in alpacas under two years old (n=7/19). The mean Schirmer tear test-1 value was 20.0 ±6 mm/minute (n=40). The mean intraocular pressure measured by rebound tonometry was 17.2 ±5.5 mmHg (n=46), and applanation tonometry resulted in statistically similar values (P=0.30; n=25). There was a significant variation in intraocular pressure throughout a 24-hour period (n=8). Fluorescein dye was not detected at the nostrils of any of the alpacas which underwent a Jones test to assess nasolacrimal duct patency (n=8).ConclusionThe ophthalmic findings appear largely consistent with previously published values from North America and continental Europe. Variations include the large range of measurements obtained and evidence of diurnal variation in intraocular pressure.

Reference values for intraocular pressure and Schirmer tear test in clinically normal Sanjabi sheep

2011 ◽  
Vol 97 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 101-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masoud Selk Ghaffari ◽  
Mohammad Shojaei ◽  
Amin Sabzevari ◽  
Nargess Khorami
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Reference Values ◽  
Clinically Normal ◽  
Schirmer Tear Test

Effects of the Application of Neck Pressure by a Collar or Harness on Intraocular Pressure in Dogs

2006 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy M. Pauli ◽  
Ellison Bentley ◽  
Kathryn A. Diehl ◽  
Paul E. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Neck Pressure

The effect on intraocular pressure (IOP) from dogs pulling against a collar or a harness was evaluated in 51 eyes of 26 dogs. The force each dog generated while pulling against a collar or a harness was measured. Intraocular pressure measurements were obtained during application of corresponding pressures via collars or harnesses. Intraocular pressure increased significantly from baseline when pressure was applied via a collar but not via a harness. Based on the results of the study, dogs with weak or thin corneas, glaucoma, or conditions for which an increase in IOP could be harmful should wear a harness instead of a collar, especially during exercise or activity.

Reliability of Refraction, Keratometry, and Intraocular Pressure Measurements with an Automated All-in-one Device

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Argyrios Tzamalis ◽  
Chara Tsiampali ◽  
Efthymia Prousali ◽  
Asimina Mataftsi ◽  
Nikolaos Ziakas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurements

Evaluation of Biomechanically Corrected Intraocular Pressure Measurements in Keratoconus and Forme Fruste Keratoconus

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (6) ◽  
pp. 541-549
Author(s):  
Tomoya Nishida ◽  
Takashi Kojima ◽  
Takahiro Kataoka ◽  
Naoki Isogai ◽  
Yoko Yoshida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Biomechanical Properties ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Altman Plot ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right ◽  
Corneal Biomechanical Properties ◽  
Forme Fruste Keratoconus

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Although biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure (bIOP) is available, the effectiveness of intraocular pressure (IOP) correction in keratoconus and forme fruste keratoconus (FFK) eyes has not been investigated. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> Evaluation of bIOP measurements in eyes with keratoconus and FFK. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Forty-two eyes in 21 patients with keratoconus in one eye and FFK in the fellow eye were examined (KC/FFK group; mean age 24.62 ± 8.6 years; 16 males and 5 females). The control group consisted of 62 eyes in 31 unaffected subjects (mean age 26.26 ± 3.64 years; 15 males and 16 females). The bIOP was determined using a Scheimpflug-based tonometer (Corvis Scheimpflug Technology [Corvis ST®]) after measuring the IOP with a conventional non-contact tonometer (NIOP). The agreement between NIOP and bIOP values was examined using the Bland-Altman plot. The difference between NIOP and bIOP (bIOP correction amount) was compared between keratoconus and FFK eyes. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In the control group, there were no significant differences between right and left eyes in both NIOP and bIOP values (<i>p</i> = 0.975 and <i>p</i> = 0.224, respectively). In the KC/FFK group, NIOP values were significantly lower in the keratoconus eyes (9.93 ± 1.96 mm Hg) than in the FFK eyes (12.23 ± 3.03 mm Hg; <i>p</i> = 0.0003). There was no significant difference in bIOP values between the right and left eyes of the KC/FFK group (<i>p</i> = 0.168). The bIOP correction amount was significantly increased in keratoconus eyes (3.58 ± 2.12 mm Hg) compared to in FFK eyes (1.80 ± 3.32 mm Hg; <i>p</i> = 0.011). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> For eyes with keratoconus and FFK, the bIOP method is effective to adjust IOP measurements based on corneal biomechanical properties.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document