SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Glokom Katarakt / 2018 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Measured by Corvis Scheimpfl ug Technology, Air-puff Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in Eyes with Different Axial Lengths and Corneal Thickness

Corvis Scheimpfl ug Teknoloji, Air-puff Tonometri ve Goldmann Applanasyon Tonometrisi ile Ölçülen Göz İçi Basınç Değerlerinin Farklı Aksiyel Uzunluk ve Kornea Kalınlığı Olan Gözlerde Karşılaştırılması

Arzu Seyhan KARATEPE
Başak BOSTANCI
Hasan Basri ARİFOĞLU
GÖKMEN ZARARSIZ
Emrullah TAŞINDI
Pages
190–195
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The CST instrument is a reliable IOP measuring instrument with similar results to GAT, which is the gold standard method for tonometric measurements.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: To compare the measurements of intraocular pressures (IOP) by Corvis Scheimpfl ug Technology (CST), Air-puff Tonometry (AT) and Goldmann Aplanation Tonometry (GAT) in the eyes with different refractive errors, axial length and corneal thickness.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Forty-six eyes of 10 healthy male and 13 healthy female volunteers with a mean age of 31.52 ± 7.36 were enrolled.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The CST instrument is a reliable IOP measuring instrument with similar results to GAT, which is the gold standard method for tonometric measurements.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the measurements of intraocular pressures (IOP) by Corvis Scheimpfl ug Technology (CST), Air-puff Tonometry (AT) and Goldmann Aplanation Tonometry (GAT) in the eyes with different refractive errors, axial length and corneal thickness. Materials and Methods: Forty-six eyes of 10 healthy male and 13 healthy female volunteers with a mean age of 31.52 ± 7.36 were enrolled. Observations were made with CST, AT and GAT with 30 min intervals, and the average of these measurements was taken for 3 times. Results: The mean of measurements were found for refraction spherical equivalent -1.07 ± 1.04 (-3.5 to 1.25), for axial lengths 24.17 ± 1.23 (22.63-27.99), and for corneal thickness 552.74 ± 25.5 (510-623), respectively. In these 46 eyes IOP values were measured 17,15 ± 2,79 mmHg by AT; 15.82 ± 2.66 mmHg by GAT; 15.69 ± 2.39 mmHg by CST, respectively. IOP values measured in all devices were found to be compatible with each other. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was the main determinant of different measurements among the devices. Conclusion: The CST instrument is a reliable IOP measuring instrument with similar results to GAT, which is the gold standard method for tonometric measurements.

Özet

Amaç: Oküler biyomekanik parametreleri de değerlendirerek göz içi basıncını (GİB) ölçen Corvis Scheimpfl ug Teknoloji (CST) cihazının GİB ölçümleri ile günlük pratikte kullandığımız Air-puff Tonometri (AT) ve altın standart olan Goldmann Aplanasyon Tonometrisinin (GAT) GİB ölçümlerini farklı refraktif kusur, aksiyel uzunluk ve kornea kalınlığına sahip gözlerde kıyaslamak. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmamıza yaş ortalaması 31,52 ± 7,36 olan 10’u erkek, 13’ü kadın 23 sağlıklı gönüllü bireyin 46 gözü dahil edildi. Gözlere 30 dk aralıklarla sırası ile CST, AT ve GAT ile ölçümler 3 kez ölçülerek bu ölçümlerin ortalaması alındı. Bulgular: Refraksiyon sferik eşdeğeri ortalama -1,07 ± 1,04 (-3,5 ile 1,25 arasında) olan, aksiyel uzunlukları ortalama 24,17 ± 1,23 (22,63-27,99) olan ve kornea kalınlıkları ortalama 552,74 ± 25,5 (510-623) olan bu 46 gözde ortalama GİB değerleri: AT ile 17,15 ± 2,79; GAT ile 15,82 ± 2,66; CST ile 15,69 ± 2,39 mmHg idi. Tüm cihazlarda ölçülen GİB değerleri birbirleri ile uyumlu bulunmuştur. Cihazlar arasında farklı ölçümler olmasındaki temel etken santral kornea kalınlığı (SKK) olarak tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç: CST cihazı tonometrik ölçümlerde altın standart yöntem olan GAT ile benzer sonuçlar veren güvenilir bir GİB ölçüm cihazıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARATEPE, A. S., BOSTANCI, B., ARİFOĞLU, H. B., ZARARSIZ, G., TAŞINDI, E. (2018). Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Measured by Corvis Scheimpfl ug Technology, Air-puff Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in Eyes with Different Axial Lengths and Corneal Thickness. Glokom Katarakt, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 4, 190–195. https://ajindex.com/articles/166060

References (13)

  1. Whitacre MM, Stein R. Sources of error with use of Goldmann-ty- pe tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol. 1993; 38: 1-30.
  2. Feltge N, Leifert D, Funk J. Correlation between central corneal thickness, applanation tonometry, and direct intracameral IOP rea- dings. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001; 85: 85-7.
  3. Hon Y, Lam AK. Corneal deformation measurement using Sche- impfl ug noncontact tonometry. Optom Vis Sci. 2013; 90: 1-3.
  4. Liu J, Roberts CJ. Infl uence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: Quantitative analysis. J Ca- taract Refract Surg. 2005; 31: 146-55.
  5. Kaushik S, Pandav SS, Banger A, et al. Relationship between corneal biomechanical properties, central corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure across the spectrum of glaucoma. Am J Opht- halmol. 2012; 153: 840-9.
  6. G Nemeth, Z Hassan, A Csutak, et al. Repeatability of ocular bi- omechanical data measurements with a Scheimpfl ug-based non- contact device on normal corneas. J Refract Surgery. 2013; 29: 558-63.
  7. S Bak-Nielsen, IB Pedersen, A Ivarsen, et al. Repeatability, repro- ducibility, and age dependency of dynamic Scheimpfl ug-based pneumotonometer and its correlation with a dynamic bidirectional pneumotonometry device. Cornea. 2015; 34: 7-7.
  8. Reznicek L, Muth D, Kampik A, et al. Evaluation of a novel Sc- heimpfl ug-bases non-coantact tonometer in healthy subjects and patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013; 97: 1410-4.
  9. Smedowski A, Weglarz B, Tarnawska D, et al. Comparison of th- ree intraocular pressure measurement methods including biomec- hanical properties of the cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55: 666-73.
  10. Lanza M, Iaccarino S, Cennamo M, et al. Comparison between Corvis and other tonometers in healthy eyes. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2015; 38: 94-8
  11. Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, et al. Corneal Deformation Parameters Provided by the Corvis-ST Pachy-Tonometer in Healt- hy Subjects and Glaucoma Patients. J Glaucoma. 2015; 24: 568- 74. Hong J, Xu J, Wei A, et al. A new tonometer-the Corvis ST tono- meter: clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmann appla- nation tonometers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54: 659-65.
  12. Bao F, Huang Z, Huang J, et al. Clinical evaluation of methods to correct introcular pressure measurements by the Goldmann app- lanation tonometer, ocular response analyzer, and corvis ST tono- meter for the effects of corneal stiffness parameters. J Glaucoma. 2016; 25: 5510-19.
  13. Vinciguerra R, Ambrósio R Jr, Elsheikh A, et al. Det