一种新型凸面眼压计的设计原理及研制

目的为获得眼压测量的更大精确性,设计并研制一架新型凸面眼压计。方法根据Goldmann压平眼压计的基本原理,将Goldmann压平眼压计测压头的平面改成曲率半径为7.8mm的凸面,并在凸面中央刻一个3.06mm直径的圆形刻线,作为压迫角膜固定面积的标志。其测量方法与Goldmann压平眼压计相同。用本眼压计对55例(109只眼)进行了初步眼压测试,并与Goldmann压平眼压计进行对照。结果凸面眼压计的平均眼压为(16.08±5.13)mmHg,Goldmann压平眼压计平均眼压为(14.96±4.27)mmHg,t值=0.28,P>0.05,两者差异无显著统计学意义;r=0.82,两者有较好的正相关。结论本眼压计有较高的准确性,可用作临床眼压测量。     

非接触眼压计测量的评价——与Goldmann眼压计的比较

目的 :对比非接触式眼压计 (NCT)与Goldmann眼压计所测量的眼压值以评价非接触式眼压计在临床的应用价值。方法 :10 5例 2 0 9只眼纳入本观察 ,其中 14 2只眼作了验光、眼轴及角膜曲率测量 ,并调查患者对两种眼压计的接受度。结果 :两种眼压计测量结果的相关系数为 0 975 ,两者差异有显著性 (t值 -7 949,P <0 0 0 1)。非接触式眼压计的测量结果高于Goldmann眼压计 ,尤其在眼压 >2 1mmHg组更为明显 (t值 -5 5 0 6,P <0 0 0 1)。角膜曲率、屈光度、散光、眼轴与两者测量值间差d无相关性 ,相关系数分别为 -0 0 5 4,-0 0 41,-0 13 5 ,0 113 ,P值均 >0 0 5。患者对非接触式眼压计的接受程度大于Goldmann眼压计结论 :非接触式眼压计可用于临床普查 ,但在青光眼的临床工作中建议使用Goldmann压平式眼压计     

Tono-Pen眼压计与Goldmann眼压计的临床比较

目的:了解Tono-Pen眼压计的临床实用性。方法:62例(111只眼)随机先后用Tono-Pen眼压计与Goldmann眼压计进行眼压测量,比较两种眼压计测量值的差异。结果:111只眼中,用Goldmann眼压计测量的眼压平均值为(15.82±4.88)mmHg,用Tono-Pen眼压计测量的眼压平均值为(16.34±4.33)mmHg,两者有显著性差异。眼压在9～30mmHg范围时,两种眼压计的测量值之差为(-0.51±2.24)mmHg,差异无显著性。在眼压低于9mmHg时,有过高估计眼压的趋向;在眼压高于30mmHg时,有过低估计眼压的趋向。Tono-Pen眼压计与Goldmann眼压计的相关系数为0.865,呈密切相关。结论:Tono-Pen眼压计与Goldmann眼压计有很好的相关性,尤其是在眼压为9～30mmHg范围。眼科学报 2002;18:226-229.     

动态轮廓眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计的临床应用比较

目的了解动态轮廓眼压计的临床实用性。方法67例患者134眼随即先后用动态轮廓眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计进行眼压测量,比较两种眼压计测量值的差异。结果134眼中,用Goldmann压平眼压计测量的眼压平均值为(15.82±-4.88)mmHg,用动态轮廓眼压计测量的眼压平均值为(14.5±-4.33)mmHg,;两者无明显差异。但73%的患者的动态轮廓眼压计的眼压值高于Goldmann压平眼压计的测量值。两者的相关性为0.83。结论动态轮廓眼压计可以较好的反映患者的眼压,操作简便,值得推广应用。     

手持式非接触眼压计测量值准确性的比较

目的:对手持式非接触眼压计测量眼压的准确性及可靠性进行评价。方法:分别采用keeler,手持非接触眼压计和R900,Goldmann压平眼压计对58例患者(113只眼)的限内压进行了测量并对两种测量方法的测量结果进行了比较。结果:采用手持非接触眼压计测得的平均眼压为16.31±5.59mmHg(1mmHg=0.1333kpa),采用Goldmann压平眼压计测得的平均眼压值为17.49±6.13mmHg。经统计学t检验,两种测量结果差别无统计学意义(P>0.05)。经直线相关和回归分析发现两种方法测量值间存在正相关(r=0.8942,b=0.8154)。结论:手持非接触眼压计同Goldmann压平眼压计相比具有同样的精确性和可靠性,可用于青光眼临床和青光眼筛选。眼科学报 1995;11:86—88。     

Goldmann压平眼压计与非接触式眼压计测量眼压的对比研究

目的:比较Goldmann压平眼压计(Goldmannapplanationtonometer,GAT)与非接触眼压计(non-contacttonometer,NCT)测量眼压的差异,以评价NCT与GAT测量的相关性。方法:对265例志愿者(529眼)分别采用Goldmann压平眼压计与非接触眼压计测量眼压。结果:非接触眼压计的测量结果低于Goldmann压平眼压计,且差异有显著性(19.13vs23.43,t=22.644,P<0.01),随眼压值的升高,两者相差幅度增大,差异在眼压〉30mmHg时更为明显,但相关系数逐渐变小。结论:非接触眼压计眼压测量值较Goldmann眼压测量值偏低,非接触眼压计眼压值为临界眼压时,需应用Gold-mann压平眼压计校正,以便及时发现病理性眼压升高,避免青光眼的漏诊和失治。     

动态轮廓眼压计与压平眼压计的比较

目的:评价和比较动态轮廓眼压计和Goldmann压平眼压计测得的LASIK手术后眼压值。方法:接受准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(LASIK)的近视患者34例68眼,分别于术前和术后3mo使用动态轮廓眼压计(Pascal dynamic contour tonometer,PDCT)和Goldmann压平眼压计(the Goldmann applanation tonometer,GAT)进行眼压测量。比较手术前后两种测量方法测得的眼压值的差异。多元线性相关分析研究GAT,PDCT测量值和角膜曲率及角膜中央厚度(CCT)之间的相关性。结果:LASIK手术后GAT测量值较术前低,而PDCT值和术前比较差异则无统计学意义。角膜曲率、CCT和GAT读数呈线性相关,而与PDCT读数无关。结论:GAT测量得到的眼压低于实际值。PDCT测眼压不受角膜曲率和中央角膜厚度影响。     

非接触式眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计测量眼压的比较

目的 :比较非接触式眼压计 ( NCT)和 Goldm ann压平眼压计测量眼压的差异。方法 :对 112例 ( 2 2 0眼 )志愿者分别进行 NCT和 Goldmann压平眼压计眼压测量及中央角膜厚度测量 ,并对其中 16 8眼进行自动验光检查。结果 :NCT和 Goldmann眼压计眼压测量值分别为 1.98± 0 .6 9k Pa和 2 .34± 0 .77k Pa。 NCT眼压测量值较 Goldmann眼压测量值偏低 0 .36± 0 .37k Pa( P<0 .0 5 )。眼压在 1.33～ 2 .6 7k Pa内 ,二种眼压计测量眼压值偏差最小。角膜厚度和眼球屈光度与 NCT眼压测量值分别呈明显正相关和负相关。结论 :NCT眼压测量值较Goldmann眼压测量值偏低 ,NCT眼压值为临界眼压时 ,应应用 Goldm ann压平眼压计校正     

非接触式眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计测量眼压的比较

目的:比较非接触眼压计(non-contacttonometer,NCT)与Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)测量眼压的差异,以评价非接触式眼压计在临床青光眼患者及疑似青光眼患者中的的应用价值。方法:志愿者174例348眼分别由专人进行非接触眼压计(NCT)与Goldmann压平眼压计眼压测量。结果:非接触眼压计(NCT)的测量结果低于Gold-mann压平眼压计且差异有显著性(19.6vs23.4,P<0.05),两者相关系数为r=0.783,差异在眼压>30mmHg组更为明显,相关系数为0.334。结论:非接触眼压计(NCT)可以用于临床普查,在青光眼的临床工作中建议使用Goldmann压平眼压计矫正。     

三种眼压计对维族和汉族大学生眼压测量值比较

目的：比较Goldmann眼压计、非接触式眼压计与Schiotz眼压计对维吾尔族、汉族大学生眼压测量值结果。

方法：横断面研究。分别采用Goldmann眼压计、非接触式眼压计与Schiotz眼压计测量维吾尔族、汉族大学生眼压。比较两族整体间、同族不同性别间、不同眼别间三种眼压计测得的眼压值。

结果：相同眼压计对维吾尔族及汉族大学生眼压测量值差异有统计学意义(P<0.05); 相同眼压计对同族不同性别间眼压测量值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05); 相同眼压计对不同眼别间眼压测量值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),汉族学生比维吾尔族学生眼压测量值高(P<0.05),非接触式眼压计比Goldmann眼压计眼压测量值偏高(P<0.05),非接触式眼压计比Schiotz眼压计眼压测量值要小(P<0.05)。

结论：同一眼压测量仪对同族不同性别间及不同眼别间无差异,汉族学生比维吾尔族学生眼压测量值高,Schiotz眼压计眼压值测量结果显著高于非接触式眼压计,而非接触式眼压计眼压测量值高于Goldmann眼压计。     

角膜厚度对两种眼压测量方法的影响

目的　比较非接触眼压计 (non -contacttonometer ,NCT)和Goldmann压平眼压计测量眼压的差异 ,并分别探讨中央角膜厚度 (centralcornealthickniss ,CCT)对这两种测量方法的影响。方法　对 1 0 8例拟接受PRK或LASIK手术的患者行CCT ,NCT和Goldmann压平计眼压测量。结果NCT和Goldmann压平眼压计测得的眼压均值具有显著性差异 (F =89 .70 4 4,P <0 . 0 1 )。CCT与NCT和Goldmann压平眼压计测量值呈正相关 ,相关系数分别是r =0. 4 96 0 (t =8 .356 3,P <0 .0 0 1 )和r =0 . 2 1 1 3(t =3. 1 6 2 3,P <0 .0 0 1 )。结论　NCT和Goldmann压平眼压计测量眼压值有差异 ,NCT测量值大于Goldmann压平眼压计 ,CCT对NCT的影响大于Goldmann压平眼压计。     

非接触眼压计的测量值探讨

比较眼压测量结果的不同取值方法 ,探讨非接触眼压计测量眼压的准确性。方法 :用非接触眼压计和压平眼压计测量 2 6 4例患者 ( 5 2 8只眼 )眼压 ,取非接触眼压计第一次测量值、三次均值和三次中的低值与压平眼压计比较。结果 :非接触眼压计测量眼压值与压平眼压计测得值密切相关 ,其中非接触眼压计三次测得值中的最低值与压平眼压计测得值最接近。结论 :非接触眼压计测量眼压应采用三次测量值的低值。     

The non-contact tonometer. Its value and limitations

A review of the literature and a comparative study against Goldmann applanation tonometers suggests that the non-contact tonometer is reliable for measuring intraocular pressures within the normal range. In addition, the non-contact tonometer eliminates the need for corneal contact and topical anesthesia, thereby avoiding the potential problems of corneal abrasion, spread of infection, and drug reactions. The instrument can be used reliably by paramedical personnel and has particular value in mass screening and possibly in studies of topical antiglaucoma drugs. The non-contact tonometer is less reliable in patients with elevated intraocular pressure, since comparative studies against the Goldmann applanation tonometers have shown poorer correlations in the higher pressure ranges. The instrument is also limited by an abnormal cornea or poor fixation, which may interfere with accurate pressure measurements. Furthermore, the non-contact tonometer is less portable than many tonometers and more expensive than most.     

X-PERT NCT advanced logic tonometer valuation

The air pulsed automatic tonometer X-PERT NCT has been tested in hospitals on glaucomatous patients. This new technique avoids direct contact with the patient's eyes and therefore avoids any risk of contamination. The population studied consisted of 118 eyes of 60 patients whose intraocular pressure (I.O.P.) is measured by applanation with the Goldmann tonometer and then by the air pulsed tonometer. The average I.O.P. obtained by Goldmann tonometer is 17.5±5mmHg while by X-PERT tonometer, the average I.O.P. is 17.4 ±1.5 mmHg. Statistical analysis of these data showed a very good correlation (r=0.969) in the two methods of measurement.     

Comparison of the ICare® rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) using a new induction/impact rebound tonometer (ICare) in comparison with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (AT). The left eyes of 46 university students were assessed with the two tonometers, with induction tonometry being performed first. The ICare was handled by an optometrist and the Goldmann tonometer by an ophthalmologist. In this study, statistically significant differences were found when comparing the ICare rebound tonometer with applanation tonometry (AT) (p < 0.05). The mean difference between the two tonometers was 1.34 +/- 2.03 mmHg (mean +/- S.D.) and the 95% limits of agreement were +/-3.98 mmHg. A frequency distribution of the differences demonstrated that in more than 80% of cases the IOP readings differed by <3 mmHg between the ICare and the AT. In the present population the ICare overestimates the IOP value by 1.34 mmHg on average when compared with Goldmann tonometer. Nevertheless, the ICare tonometer may be helpful as a screening tool when Goldmann applanation tonometry is not applicable or not recommended, as it is able to estimate IOP within a range of +/-3.00 mmHg in more than 80% of the population.     

iCare回弹式眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计测量结果的比较

目的对比iCare回弹式眼压计（RBT）与Goldmann压平眼压计（GAT）测量眼压的一致性,评价RBT测量眼压的准确性及安全性。方法研究为诊断性试验评价。分别用2种眼压计测量角膜正常的患者52例104眼,其中男28例,女24例;年龄19～76岁,以GAT眼压值作为基准分为5组：≤10mmHg、11～20mmHg、21～30mmHg、31～40mmHg、≥41mmHg组。评估2种测量方法的眼压值差值及其与眼压的关系。对RBT眼压值随GAT眼压值变化的关系进行评价。结果 RBT测得的眼压读数为（17.20±9.13）mmHg,GAT测得的眼压读数为（17.13±8.94）mmHg,二者差异无统计学意义（t=0.260,P=0.795）。60.58%的患者2种方法测得的眼压差值在1mmHg以内。5个组中,GAT眼压与RBT眼压的绝对差值随着眼压读数的增高而加大,最大值在≥41mmHg组,二者的最大绝对差值〈4mmHg。RBT眼压读数随着GAT眼压读数的改变而变化,二者的变化呈现良好的相关性（r=0.917,P〈0.01）,但与GAT测量法比较,RBT测得的眼压值均稍高。当GAT眼压值〉21mmHg时,RBT测量的敏感度和特异度分别为95.5%和98.8%。RBT测量后25%的患者主诉有异物感和眼干。结论 iCareRBT测量眼压具有良好的耐受性和安全性,与GAT测量眼压具有较好的相关性,适用于临床。     

Comparison of transpalpebral tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer

Transpalpebral tonometer, a new generation intraocular pressure (IOP) measuring instrument is nowadays used for self-tonometry. It is convenient and noninvasive and seems suitable for IOP measurement at home, as recommended by several authors. Apart from its use for self-tonometry, it has been reported that transpalpebral tonometer is more accurate in determining the IOP in thinned cornea after photorefractive procedures when compared with Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). However, several other studies have revealed that their sensitivity in detecting IOP in glaucomatous eye is low compared with standard GAT. The aim of this study is to review the results of several studies that have compared IOP measurements obtained by the transpalpebral tonometer and GAT.