Dataset Information

Intraocular pressure according to different types of tonometry (non-contact and Goldmann applanation) in patients with different degrees of bilateral tearing.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To investigate intraocular pressure (IOP) readings by non-contact tonometry (NCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) for patients with different degrees of bilateral tearing.

Methods

In this study, we reviewed the medical charts of patients complaining of different degrees of bilateral tearing. The tear meniscus height (TMH) and IOP with NCT and GAT were measured. In each patient, a comparison of IOP readings between the eye with lower TMH and the contralateral eye with higher TMH was evaluated. The TMH was graded as follows: grade 1 (low): TMH < 0.2 mm; grade 2 (moderate): 0.2 mm ? TMH < 0.6 mm; grade 3 (high): TMH ? 0.6 mm. Subsequently, a comparison of IOP readings among eyes with low, moderate, and high TMH was also performed.

Results

A total of 120 eyes of 60 patients were enrolled. When comparing the two eyes of a patient, the eye with higher TMH showed higher NCT readings and larger difference in IOP readings between the two tonometries than the eye with lower TMH (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). When TMH was classified into grades according to the degree, the high TMH eyes showed higher NCT readings than did the low and moderate TMH eyes (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). In addition, the high TMH eyes showed a larger difference in IOP readings between the two tonometries than did the low and moderate TMH eyes (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

Eyes with higher TMH showed higher NCT readings and a larger difference in IOP between the two tonometries (NCT and GAT) than those with lower TMH. In patients with tearing, the NCT value may be inaccurate, so it is necessary to measure the GAT.

SUBMITTER: Seol BR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6746371 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intraocular pressure according to different types of tonometry (non-contact and Goldmann applanation) in patients with different degrees of bilateral tearing.

Seol Bo Ram BR Kang Tae Gu TG Gu Bonhyeok B

PloS one 20190916 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>To investigate intraocular pressure (IOP) readings by non-contact tonometry (NCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) for patients with different degrees of bilateral tearing.<h4>Methods</h4>In this study, we reviewed the medical charts of patients complaining of different degrees of bilateral tearing. The tear meniscus height (TMH) and IOP with NCT and GAT were measured. In each patient, a comparison of IOP readings between the eye with lower TMH and the contralateral eye w ...[more]

PMID: 31525237

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo develop an objective and automated method for measuring intraocular pressure using deep learning and fixed-force Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) techniques.DesignProspective cross-sectional study.ParticipantsPatients from an academic glaucoma practice.MethodsIntraocular pressure was estimated by analyzing videos recorded using a standard slit-lamp microscope and fixed-force GAT. Video frames were labeled to identify the outline of the reference tonometer and the applanation mires. A deep learning model was trained to localize and segment the tonometer and mires. Intraocular pressure values were calculated from the deep learning-predicted tonometer and mire diameters using the Imbert-Fick formula. A separate test set was collected prospectively in which standard and automated GAT measurements were collected in random order by 2 independent masked observers to assess the deep learning model as well as interobserver variability.Main outcome measuresIntraocular pressure measurements between standard and automated methods were compared.ResultsTwo hundred sixty-three eyes of 135 patients were included in the training and validation videos. For the test set, 50 eyes from 25 participants were included. Each eye was measured by 2 observers, resulting in 100 videos. Within the test set, the mean difference between automated and standard GAT results was -0.9 mmHg (95% limits of agreement [LoA], -5.4 to 3.6 mmHg). Mean difference between the 2 observers using standard GAT was 0.09 mmHg (LoA,-3.8 to 4.0 mmHg). Mean difference between the 2 observers using automated GAT videos was -0.3 mmHg (LoA, -4.1 to 3.5 mmHg). The coefficients of repeatability for automated and standard GAT were 3.8 and 3.9 mmHg, respectively. The bias for even-numbered measurements was reduced when using automated GAT.ConclusionsPreliminary measurements using deep learning to automate GAT demonstrate results comparable with those of standard GAT. Automated GAT has the potential to improve on our current GAT measurement standards significantly by reducing bias and improving repeatability. In addition, ocular pulse amplitudes could be observed using this technique.

Project description:ImportanceAccurate determination of intraocular pressure (IOP) is crucial for the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Objective clinical evaluation of the correction equations for Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) is lacking.ObjectivesTo investigate the difference between corrected and conventional GAT and Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) measurements, as well as the correlation between discordant IOP values and stage of glaucoma.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cross-sectional case series was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Zurich, and Talacker Eye Center between July 1, 2011, and May 31, 2016, among 112 white patients with glaucoma.InterventionsIntraocular pressure measurements were performed with GAT and DCT in a randomized order. Goldmann applanation tonometry measurements were modified with 5 correction equations.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was degree of concordance between corrected or uncorrected GAT and DCT measurements. The secondary end point was association between discordant IOP measurements and the stage of glaucoma, as assessed by the Glaucoma Severity Score.ResultsAmong the 112 patients (67 women and 45 men; mean [SD] age, 66.3 [13.1] years), 63 of the eyes in the study (56.3%) were left eyes and 85 patients (75.9%) were taking ocular antihypertensive medications. Mean (SD) IOP was 20.3 (4.5) mm Hg (95% CI, 19.4-21.1) as measured by DCT and 17.0 [4.1] mm Hg (95% CI, 16.3-17.8) as measured by GAT. The mean (SD) discordance between DCT and GAT measurements was -3.3 (2.0) mm Hg (95% CI, 2.9-3.6). The 5 corrected GAT values ranged from -2.7 to -5.4 mm Hg compared with DCT. The mean (SD) result of the Dresdner correction formula (17.6 [4.1] mm Hg) was closer to the DCT measurement than the original GAT measurement. The mean (SD) Glaucoma Severity Score was 4.7 (3.4) (95% CI, 4.1-5.4). The uncorrected discordance IOPDCT - IOPGAT showed a positive correlation with the Glaucoma Severity Score (rs = 0.33; P < .001) and a negative correlation with central corneal thickness (rs = -0.22; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn comparison with DCT measurements, these data suggest that GAT values are significantly discordant in eyes with thin corneas and advanced glaucoma. Application of GAT-based correction formulas involves a possible risk of creating an even greater number of unpredictable measurement errors. Hence, we advise with caution, especially pertaining to eyes with thin corneas, to not place reliance on GAT readings, and abandon any correction formula.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01474070.

Project description:PurposeCompare intraocular pressure (IOP) measured by a standard Goldmann applanation tonometer prism (IOPg) and a modified correcting applanation tonometer surface Goldmann prism (IOPc) before and after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).MethodsGoldmann tonometry was analyzed in a retrospective, cross-sectional study, using both GAT and modified-GAT prisms pre-operatively and at the 3 month post-operative appointment on 120 eyes (64 patients) who received LASIK (n = 58) or PRK (n = 62). Demographics, central corneal thickness (CCT), manifest refraction and corneal curvature (CC) data was collected at each visit as well as surgical parameters, including maximum ablation depth.ResultsMean paired IOP following LASIK decreased by - 3.28 ± 3.2 mmHg measured by IOPg and - 1.93 ± 3.3 mmHg by IOPc (p ≤ 0.0001). Mean paired IOP following PRK reduced by - 1.92 ± 3.6 mmHg measured by IOPg and - 1.06 ± 3.6 mmHg by IOPc (p ≤ 0.0001). Increased LASIK ablation depth and post-procedural change in CCT trended toward a statistically significant reduction in IOPg (p = 0.07,p = 0.12), but not IOPc (p = 0.18,p = 0.32). PRK ablation depth was not associated with a reduction in IOPg or IOPc.DiscussionThe modified Goldmann (IOPc) prism measured less of an IOP reduction following LASIK and PRK compared to the standard (IOPg) prism, and the IOP reduction with both prisms was associated with the degree of myopic correction.What is already known and the residual queryCorneal refractive surgery generally demonstrates significant postoperative Goldmann IOP reductions. Presumably, this is due to corneal biomechanical changes for which a newer method of Goldmann IOP measurement may be able to compensate.What this study addsA modified, corneal conforming Goldmann prism demonstrates significantly less IOP reduction following myopic LASIK and PRK compared to the standard flat Goldmann prism.How this study might affect research, practice or policyA newer, modified Goldmann prism may help detect glaucoma and OHT at an earlier stage in patients which have undergone LASIK or PRK. The findings corroborate predicted corneal biomechanical changes following the most common corneal refractive procedures.

Dataset Information

Intraocular pressure according to different types of tonometry (non-contact and Goldmann applanation) in patients with different degrees of bilateral tearing.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Intraocular pressure according to different types of tonometry (non-contact and Goldmann applanation) in patients with different degrees of bilateral tearing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets