RESUMO
@#AIM: To compare the measurement of intraocular pressure(IOP)through a bandage contact lens with the “native” measurement by rebound tonometry and non-contact tonometry in patients after pterygium excision. <p>METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients(50 eyes)undergone pterygium excision(unilateral nasal, primary pterygium, horizontal length <4mm), and conjunctival autografting were included in this prospective study. IOP measurements were obtained by Rebound tonometry and non-contact tonometry in random order with(lens measurement)and without(native measurement)a bandage contact lens half a month after operation. We compared the mean values(validity parameter)and standard deviation(precision parameter)of the two individual measurements in each case using the paired t-test 14d after surgery. <p>RESULTS: With the rebound tonometry we detected statistically significant higher values in the contact lens measurements(18.20±3.19 <i>vs</i> 15.17±3.80mmHg in the native measurements; <i>P</i><0.001), a good correlation with <i>r</i>=0.884 and mean difference was 3.04±1.79mmHg; With the non-contact tonometry we detected statistically significant higher values in the contact lens measurements(15.74±3.23 <i>vs</i> 13.19±3.89mmHg in the native measurements; <i>P</i><0.001), a good correlation with <i>r</i>=0.876 and mean difference was 2.55±1.88mmHg. In the contact lens measurements and native measurements, we detected statistically significant higher values by Rebound tonometry than that by non-contact tonometry(<i>P</i><0.001), and mean difference was 2.46±1.45mmHg, 1.98±1.67mmHg. <p>CONCLUSION: The use of rebound tonometry and non-contact tonometry shows good consistency between lens measurement and native measurement. However, it should be noted that the average of the measurements over contact lens by rebound tonometry and non-contact tonometry were found to be higher than that in native measurement, and the average of the measurements with and without lens by rebound tonometer was found to be higher than what was measured by non-contact tonometry.
RESUMO
@#AIM: To compare the measurement of intraocular pressure(IOP)through a bandage contact lens with the “native” measurement by rebound tonometry and non-contact tonometry in patients after pterygium excision. <p>METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients(50 eyes)undergone pterygium excision(unilateral nasal, primary pterygium, horizontal length <4mm), and conjunctival autografting were included in this prospective study. IOP measurements were obtained by Rebound tonometry and non-contact tonometry in random order with(lens measurement)and without(native measurement)a bandage contact lens half a month after operation. We compared the mean values(validity parameter)and standard deviation(precision parameter)of the two individual measurements in each case using the paired t-test 14d after surgery. <p>RESULTS: With the rebound tonometry we detected statistically significant higher values in the contact lens measurements(18.20±3.19 <i>vs</i> 15.17±3.80mmHg in the native measurements; <i>P</i><0.001), a good correlation with <i>r</i>=0.884 and mean difference was 3.04±1.79mmHg; With the non-contact tonometry we detected statistically significant higher values in the contact lens measurements(15.74±3.23 <i>vs</i> 13.19±3.89mmHg in the native measurements; <i>P</i><0.001), a good correlation with <i>r</i>=0.876 and mean difference was 2.55±1.88mmHg. In the contact lens measurements and native measurements, we detected statistically significant higher values by Rebound tonometry than that by non-contact tonometry(<i>P</i><0.001), and mean difference was 2.46±1.45mmHg, 1.98±1.67mmHg. <p>CONCLUSION: The use of rebound tonometry and non-contact tonometry shows good consistency between lens measurement and native measurement. However, it should be noted that the average of the measurements over contact lens by rebound tonometry and non-contact tonometry were found to be higher than that in native measurement, and the average of the measurements with and without lens by rebound tonometer was found to be higher than what was measured by non-contact tonometry.
RESUMO
@#AIM: To investigate the central corneal thickness(CCT)distribution of the children with ametropia in the non-contact tonometry(NCT), and the different intraocular pressure(IOP)measurements with Goldmann applanation tonometry(GAT)and the OCULUS Corvis ST(CST)corneal biomechanical analyzer, meanwhile, to evaluate the correlation between IOP and CCT. <p>METHODS: NCT was used to measure 39 children(78 eyes)of non-glaucomatous ametropia with single eye or binocular IOP higher than 21 mmHg. The IOP was measured again with CST and GAT. The two instruments were measured in random order and the CCT was measured by CST and corrected the IOP according to the CCT. The eyes were divided into the normal group and the thicker group according to the CCT. The three IOP values were analyzed by the ANOVA, and the IOP and CCT was analyzed by the Pearson correlation coefficient. <p>RESULTS: In the normal CCT group, the IOP by CST was lower than that the GAT and NCT measurements and the difference was statistically significant(<i>F</i>=5.12, <i>P</i>=0.01). In the thicker group, the comparison of the three intraocular pressure measurement methods was statistically significant(<i>F</i>=15.72, <i>P</i><0.001). IOP by NCT and GAT were significantly correlated with CCT(<i>r</i><sub>NCT</sub>=0.298, <i>P</i><sub>NCT</sub>=0.04; <i>r</i><sub>GAT</sub>=0.408, <i>P</i><sub>GAT</sub>=0.01). There was no significant correlation between CST corrected intraocular pressure and CCT(<i>r</i><sub>CST</sub>=0.062, <i>P</i><sub>CST</sub>=0.593). <p>CONCLUSION: The CCT of ametropia children with high IOP by Topcon tonometry were thicker. The corrected intraocular pressure of CST is lower than NCT and GAT. NCT and GAT were positively correlated with CCT. For children with thicker CCT, CST corrects intraocular pressure was closer to the real intraocular pressure value than NCT and GAT.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To report the case of a glaucoma patient with a history of LASIK surgery who presented with a wide discrepancy in intraocular pressure between the Goldmann applanation tonometry and non-contact tonometry. METHODS: A 20-year-old male glaucoma patient was referred to our clinic with a chief complaint of blurred vision in his right eye. The patient had a history of uneventful bilateral LASIK surgery. Upon our initial examination, his best-corrected visual acuity in the right eye was 0.04 and his right eye IOP was 14 mmHg by Goldmann applanation tonometry and 40 mmHg by non-contact tonometry. A slit lamp examination showed corneal epithelial edema with diffuse interface opacities. The central corneal thickness in the right eye was 587 micrometer. An ultrabiomicroscopy demonstrated an interface fluid accumulation between the LASIK flap and the stromal bed. The patient was diagnosed with juvenile open-angle glaucoma and was scheduled for a trabeculectomy. RESULTS: Seven days after trabeculectomy, the patient's vision in the right eye improved to 0.7 and his IOP was 12 mmHg by Goldmann applanation tonometry and 14 mmHg by non-contact tonometry. In addition, the corneal epithelial edema, interface opacities, and fluids had all resolved and the central corneal thickness was reduced to 489 micrometer. CONCLUSIONS: In eyes that have undergone LASIK surgery, the IOP measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry may underestimate the true pressure due to fluid accumulation under the LASIK flap. In such cases, non-contact tonometry can be a convenient and a reliable method for determining treatment plan.