scholarly journals Assessment of corneal hysteresis measured by the ocular response analyzer as a screening tool in patients with glaucoma

2018 ◽  
Vol Volume 12 ◽  
pp. 1809-1813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin A Schweitzer ◽  
Molly Ervin ◽  
John P Berdahl
Keyword(s):  
Screening Tool ◽  
Corneal Hysteresis ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer

scholarly journals Corneal hysteresis measured with the Ocular Response Analyzer®in normal and glaucomatous eyes

2010 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivia Abitbol ◽  
Jihène Bouden ◽  
Serge Doan ◽  
Thanh Hoang-Xuan ◽  
Damien Gatinel
Keyword(s):  
Corneal Hysteresis ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer

Corneal Hysteresis and the Use of the Ocular Response Analyzer in Keratoconus

2012 ◽  
pp. 91-91
Author(s):  
Raneen Shehadeh-Mashor ◽  
Ramez Barbara ◽  
Adel Barbara ◽  
Hanna Garzozi
Keyword(s):  
Corneal Hysteresis ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer

Are Ocular Response Analyzer useful to measure corneal hysteresis in patients with intracorneal rings?

2008 ◽  
Vol 86 ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
JL MENEZO ROZALEN ◽  
C PERIS-MARTINEZ ◽  
JM ARTIGAS ◽  
M DIEZ AJENJO ◽  
A FELIPE
Keyword(s):  
Corneal Hysteresis ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer

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

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.

The Relationship Between Corvis ST Tonometry Parameters and Ocular Response Analyzer Corneal Hysteresis

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 479-484
Author(s):  
Takashi Fujishiro ◽  
Masato Matsuura ◽  
Yuri Fujino ◽  
Hiroshi Murata ◽  
Kana Tokumo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Corneal Hysteresis ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer ◽  
Corvis St ◽  
The Relationship
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document