Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2018 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2018 Open Access

BMC Ophthalmology 1/2018

Analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices

Zeitschrift:
BMC Ophthalmology > Ausgabe 1/2018
Autoren:
Michele Lanza, Michele Rinaldi, Ugo Antonello Gironi Carnevale, Silvio di Staso, Mario Bifani Sconocchia, Ciro Costagliola

Abstract

Background

To evaluate differences of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements performed with Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), rebound tonometry (RT), Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and Corvis ST (CST) in eyes screened for refractive surgery.

Methods

One eye, only the right one, of 146 patients was included in this study. Each participant was submitted to a corneal analysis with Scheimpflug camera and IOP evaluation with GAT, DCT, RT, ORA and CST. Differences in IOP values obtained thanks to each instruments were compared and then correlations between these discrepancies and morphological features such as mean keratometry (MK) and central corneal thickness (CCT) provided by Pentacam were studied. Software used to run statistical evaluations was SPSS, version 18.0.

Results

Study participants had a mean age of 33.1 ± 9.2 years old. IOP values observed in this study were 15.97 ± 2.47 mmHg (GAT), 17.55 ± 2.42 mmHg (DCT), 17.49 ± 2.08 mmHg (RT), 18.51 ± 2.59 mmHg (ORA) and 18.33 ± 2.31 mmHg (CST). The mean CCT was 560.23 ± 31.00 μm, and the mean MK was 43.33 ± 1.35 D. GAT provided significant lower values in comparison to all other devices. DCT and RT gave significantly lower intermediate IOP values than those measured with ORA and CST. All the IOP measures and the differences between devices were significantly correlated with CCT.

Conclusions

According to our data, although our findings should be confirmed in further studies, GAT tonometer cannot be used interchangeably with DCT, RT, ORA and CST.
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

BMC Ophthalmology 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe