scholarly journals The Association of Central Corneal Thickness and Intraocular Pressure Measures by Non-Contact Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry among Glaucoma Patients.

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Kyei ◽  
Frank Assiamah ◽  
Michael Agyemang Kwarteng ◽  
Cynthia Pakyennu Gboglu
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
The Right

BACKGROUND፡ The aim of this study was to determine whether Central Corneal Thickness (CCT) is associated with intraocular pressure measurement (IOP) with a Non-contact tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients.MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved two hundred and thirty-two eyes of clinically diagnosed glaucoma patients receiving care at a referral facility. IOP measurements were obtained using both the Non-Contact Tonometer (NCT) and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT). The association between age, ethnicity, and CCT, as well as CCT on the measures of NCT and GAT, were analyzed.RESULTS: There were 64(55.2%) males and 52 (44.8%) females and their ages ranged from 18 to 85 years (mean age = 47.72; SD ±15.75 years). There was a weak positive correlation between the CCT and NCT findings in the right eye (r = 0.19, n = 116, p < 0.05) and in the left eye (r = 0.25, n = 116, p < 0.05). However, there was no correlation between CCT and GAT measurements. Age had a significant correlation with CCT while gender and ethnicity had no significant correlation.CONCLUSION: The study found a significant association between CCT and NCT. However, there was no significant association between CCT and GAT. CCT had an association with age but independent of gender and ethnicity since there was no significant relationship between these variables.

Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurement between Non-Contact and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry among Glaucoma Patients in Ratchaburi Hospital

2020 ◽  
Vol 103 (8) ◽  
pp. 819-823
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Outpatient Clinic ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Iop Measurement ◽  
The Mean

Objective: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) values acquired from the non-contact tonometers and a Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. Materials and Methods: The present study included 300 eyes from 150 participants that attended the glaucoma outpatient clinic. The IOP was measured using both non-contact tonometry (NCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The differences in IOP readings between the two techniques were evaluated. Results: The mean IOP as measured by NCT was 16.26±6.95 mmHg, when that of measured by GAT was 16.11±8.43 mmHg. The mean difference between the two techniques of measurement was 0.147±3.01 mmHg. The values acquired from NCT were slightly higher than those acquired by GAT in 49% of patients, and this difference was more distinct when the IOP as measured by GAT more than 21 mmHg. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant correlation in the measurement of IOP between non-contact and GAT tonometers. NCT is a proper method for mass screenings of IOP even if the IOP measurement by NCT is slightly higher than by GAT. Keywords: Tonometry, Comparison, Glaucoma, Non-contact tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometerv

scholarly journals Effect of Desonide 0.25% Ophthalmic Solution on Central Corneal Thickness and Intraocular Pressure of Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis

1970 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 156-158
Author(s):  
Ozlem Gurses Sahin
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Ophthalmic Solution ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Conjunctival Hyperaemia ◽  
Significant Difference

Aim: To evaluate whether a significant difference exists between the initial and final mean central corneal thickness that might affect Goldmann applanation tonometer recordings of patients with allergic conjunctivitis treated with desonide 0.25% ophthalmic solution, and to determine the effect of desonide on intraocular pressure by using adjusted intraocular pressure values.Methods: This double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial enrolled 30 patients (60 eyes) with allergic conjunctivitis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive desonide to 1 eye (study eye) and preservative-free tear supplement (Tears Naturale Free®) to the other eye (control eye) 3 times daily for 3 weeks. Goldmann applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness of both eyes were recorded on the day of presentation and 3 weeks later.Results: Regression of itching, tearing, conjunctival hyperaemia, and tarsal conjunctival papillary reaction were noted in the study eyes after 3 weeks of treatment. The control eyes showed mild regression of pruritis, tearing, conjunctival hyperaemia, and tarsal conjunctival papillary reaction after 3 weeks. There was a significant difference between the initial and final mean central corneal thickness values for the study eyes (p = 0.003). There were no statistically significant differences between the initial and final mean values of Goldmann applanation tonometry and adjusted intraocular pressure for the study eyes. No statistically significant differences were found between the initial and final mean values of any of the parameters for the control eyes.Conclusion: Inflammation-induced increase in central corneal thickness of patients with allergic conjunctivitis treated with desonide showed statistically significant regression. However, this regression did not significantly affect Goldmann applanation tonometry and adjusted intraocular pressure values of the treated eyes.

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.

Self-measurement with Icare HOME tonometer, patients’ feasibility and acceptability

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Cvenkel ◽  
Makedonka Atanasovska Velkovska ◽  
Vesna Dimovska Jordanova
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Pressure Data ◽  
Limits Of Agreement ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Perception Of Self ◽  
The Mean

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of self-measurement of intraocular pressure using Icare Home rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer and assess acceptability of self-tonometry in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Methods: In the study, 117 subjects were trained to use Icare Home for self-measurement. Icare Home tonometer readings were compared with Goldmann applanation tonometer, including one eye per patient. Agreement between the two methods of measurement was evaluated by Bland and Altmann analysis. Questionnaire was used to evaluate patients’ perception of self-tonometry. Results: One hundred and three out of 117 patients (88%) were able to measure their own intraocular pressure and 96 (82%) fulfilled the requirements for certification. The mean (SD) difference Goldmann applanation tonometer minus Icare Home was 1.2 (2.4) mmHg (95% limits of agreement, –3.4 to 5.9 mmHg). The magnitude of bias between the two methods depended on central corneal thickness, with greater bias at central corneal thickness <500 µm. In 65 out of 96 subjects (67.7%), Icare Home results were within 2 mmHg of the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Seventy-three out of 93 (78.5%) felt that self-tonometry was easy to use and 75 patients (80.6%) responded that they would use the device at home. Conclusion: Icare Home tonometry tends to slightly underestimate intraocular pressure compared to Goldmann applanation tonometer. Most patients were able to perform self-tonometry and found it acceptable for home use. Measurements using rebound self-tonometry could improve the quality of intraocular pressure data and optimize treatment regimen.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document