SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 8

The comparison of three different correction formulas and the modified Ehler’s algorithm in the evaluation of intraocular pressure after LASIK

Mustafa ATAŞ
Ayşe ÇİÇEK
Döndü MELEK ULUSOY
Bedirhan ALABAY
Hayrettin COBANOGLU
Esra VURAL
İsmail AYDIN
Pages
1573–1577
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

In addition, a significant difference between preoperative IOP and postoperative IOP corrected with formula 1 was observed (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of this study is to assess the correlation between the preoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) and the postoperative corrected IOP values calculated by using the modified Ehler’s algorithm and the three formulas after laser asisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery.Material and Methods: The medical records of the patients to whom LASIK was performed to correct myopia and/or astigmatism between June 2018 and December 2018 were analyzed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In addition, the corrected postoperative IOP values were calculated with Formula 1, Formula 2 and Formula 3 and the corrected postoperative IOP values were compared with the uncorrected preoperative IOP.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, a significant difference between preoperative IOP and postoperative IOP corrected with formula 1 was observed (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to assess the correlation between the preoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) and the postoperative corrected IOP values calculated by using the modified Ehler’s algorithm and the three formulas after laser asisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery.Material and Methods: The medical records of the patients to whom LASIK was performed to correct myopia and/or astigmatism between June 2018 and December 2018 were analyzed. The corrected preoperative and postoperative IOP values calculated with modified Ehler’s correction factor algorithm were compared. In addition, the corrected postoperative IOP values were calculated with Formula 1, Formula 2 and Formula 3 and the corrected postoperative IOP values were compared with the uncorrected preoperative IOP. Paired t-test was performed to compare the preoperative and postoperative IOP values. The Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to analyze the correlation between preoperative IOP values and postoperative corrected IOP values.Results: The statistically significant difference was not observed between preoperative IOP and postoperative corrected IOP for formula two and formula 3 (p=0.42 and 0.80, respectively). There was significant difference between preoperative and postoperative IOP corrected with modified Ehler’s algorithm (p=0.03). In addition, a significant difference between preoperative IOP and postoperative IOP corrected with formula 1 was observed (p

🔖

Cite This Article

ATAŞ, M., ÇİÇEK, A., ULUSOY, D. M., ALABAY, B., COBANOGLU, H., VURAL, E., AYDIN, İ. (2022). The comparison of three different correction formulas and the modified Ehler’s algorithm in the evaluation of intraocular pressure after LASIK. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 8, 1573–1577. https://ajindex.com/articles/446966

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Goldmann H, Schmidt T. Uber applanations-tonometrie.Ophthalmologica 1957;134:221-42
  2. Ehlers N, Hansen FK, Aasved H. Biometric correlations ofcorneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol 1975;53:652-9
  3. Brandt JD. Corneal thickness in glaucoma screening, diagnosis,and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2004;15:85-9
  4. Rashad KM, Bahnassy AA. Changes in intraocular pressure after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Refract Surg 2001;17:420-7
  5. Schipper I, Senn P, Thomann U, et al. Intraocular pressure after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. J Refract Sug 1995;11:366-370
  6. Kf Damji, Munger R. Influence of central corneal thickness on applanation intraocular pressure. J Glaucoma 2000;9:205-7
  7. Cheng AC, Fan D, Tang E, et al. Effect of corneal curvature and corneal thickness on the assessment of intraocular pressure using noncontact tonometry in patients after myopic LASIK surgery. Cornea 2006;25:26-8
  8. Hamed-Azzam S, Briscoe D, Tomkins O, et al. Evaluation of intraocular pressure according to corneal thickness before and after excimer laser corneal ablation for myopia. Int Ophthalmol 2013;33:349-54
  9. Garzozi HJ Chung HS, Lang Y, et al. Intraocular pressure and photorefractive keratectomy: a comparison of three different tonometers. Cornea 2001;20:33-6
  10. Luce DA: Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:156-62
  11. Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma 2006;15:364-70
  12. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Fernandez-Vidal A, et al. Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:4410-4
  13. Lee SY, Kim EW, Choi W, et al. Significance of dynamic contour tonometry in evaluation of progression of glaucoma in patients with a history of laser refractive surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019 (Epub ahead of print)
  14. Sadigh AL, Fouladi RF, Hashemi H, et al. A comparison between Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry after photorefractive keratectomy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2013;251:603-8
  15. Aristeidou AP, Labiris G, Katsanos A, et al. Comparison between Pascal dynamic contour tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer after different types of refractive surgery. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011;249:767-73