动态轮廓眼压计与非接触式眼压计的比较

目的探讨中央角膜厚度和角膜曲率对轮廓动态眼压计以及非接触式眼压计眼压测量结果的影响。方法接受准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(LASIK)的近视患者27例(54只眼),分别于术前和术后第4周使用非接触式眼压计(NCT)和动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)进行眼压测量。多元线性相关分析研究NCT、DCT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术后NCT测量值降低,而DCT测量值和术前比较差异则无统计学意义。角膜曲率、CCT和NCT读数呈线性相关,而与DCT读数无关。结论DCT测量眼压不受角膜曲率和中央角膜厚度影响,因此更适合于正常眼以及曾经接受角膜屈光手术眼的眼压测量。     

轮廓动态眼压计测量准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术后眼压

目的通过与Goldmann眼压计(goldmann appla-nation tonometer,GAT)的比较,评价轮廓动态眼压计(dynamiccontour tonometer,DCT)在准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(laser insitu keratomileusis,LASIK)前和术后眼压测量中的应用价值。方法在术前以及术后第1周和第4周,分别用GAT和DCT测量30例60眼的眼压,对所得结果采用SPSS 11.5统计分析软件进行统计学处理。结果中央角膜厚度(centralcorneal thickness,CCT)和GAT读数相关,而与DCT读数无关。术前眼压和术后第1周、第4周的眼压比较,GAT读数分别下降(5.00±1.12)mmHg和(5.45±1.13)mmHg,DCT则无显著性差异。结论LASIK导致的CCT变化可影响GAT测量结果的准确性,但对DCT无影响,因此,DCT更适用于正常眼以及曾接受LASIK手术眼的眼压测量。     

三种眼压计在准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术后的应用比较

目的评价三种不同眼压计在近视准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术后的应用。方法对近视33例66眼和LASIK术后43例86眼分别用非接触眼压计(non—contact tonometer NCT)，Goldmann压平眼压计(Godmann applanalion tonometer，GAT)和Tono-Pen压平眼压计测量眼压(Tono—Pen眼压计测量角膜中央和颞下距角膜缘1．5～2mm处的眼压)，同时测角膜中央及颞下方的厚度。结果用三种方法测得的近视眼LASIK术后的眼压测量值均明显低于正常近视眼。两组均为Tono—Pen和NCT、与GAT测量值呈正相关，LASIK术后中央Tbno—Pen眼压测量值与术前GAT呈正相关。眼压与角膜厚度的关系：近视眼组，NCT与角膜中央厚度呈正相关；GAT和Tono—Pen与角膜厚度无相关性。LASIK术后组，GAT和NCT与角膜厚度呈正相关；Tono-Pen与角膜中央厚度无相关性。结论LASIK术后眼压测量值下降。Tono—Pen测量IOP不受角膜厚度的影响，可应用于LASIK术后等角膜表面不平者。     

中央角膜厚度对3种眼压计眼压测量值的影响

目的比较分析不同中央角膜厚度(central corneal thickness,CCT)下Icare回弹式眼压计、Goldmann压平式眼压计(Goldmann applanation tonometer,GAT)和动态轮廓眼压计(dynamic contour tonometry,DCT)的眼压测量结果,探讨CCT对3种眼压计测量值的影响。方法 对78例患者152眼分别用Icare、GAT、DCT3种眼压计进行眼压测量,并进行CCT的测量,对比不同CCT下3种眼压计的测量结果,分析眼压测量值与CCT的关系。结果 在全部受测者中Icare、GAT、DCT测得的眼压均值分别为(19.16±5.03)mmHg(1 kPa=7.5 mmHg)、(18.41±4.52)mmHg和(17.23±3.69)mmHg,三者之间有显著差异(F=7.256,P=0.001)。Icare和GAT的眼压测量值均与CCT显著相关(r=0.341,P<0.001;r=0.333,P<0.001),CCT每改变10μm,Icare的眼压值改变0.47 mmHg,GAT的眼压值改变0.41 mmHg;而DCT的眼压测量值与CCT无显著相关(r=0.032,P=0.699)。结论 Icare、GAT的眼压测量值均明显受CCT的影响,而Icare受CCT影响的程度较GAT的稍大,DCT的眼压测量值基本不受CCT的影响。     

角膜厚度对三种不同眼压计测量的影响

目的:比较采用Goldmann压平眼压计(Goldmann applanation tonometer,GAT)、非接触眼压计(non-contact tonometer,NCT)和Schiotz眼压计(Schiotz tonometer,ST)的眼压(intraoeular pressure,IOP)测量,评估角膜中央厚度(central corneal thickness,CCT)对读数的影响。方法:使用GAT、NCT和ST对所有患者的右眼进行眼压测量。超声角膜厚度测量法测定CCT。所有IOP及CCT测量由同一检查者进行。计算CCT25%(Q1)百分位数和75%(Q3)百分位数值,并通过这种方法将该组分为薄、中、厚角膜亚组。使用Statplus软件进行统计分析。结果:全系列144眼,GAT测量平均IOP为17.4±4.9mmHg,NCT为16.0±5.8mmHg,ST为14.0±4.0mmHg(Friedman方差分析P<0.01)。IOP水平和CCT之间的相关系数NCT为0.787(P<0.01),GAT为0.630(P<0.01),ST为0.565(P<0.01)。ST测量中,纠正的IOP误差和CCT之间的相关性在厚角膜明显弱(r=0.381,P=0.022)。结论:NCT是最易受不同CCT影响的设备。ST读数似乎比GAT和NCT读数受CCT的影响小。特别是在厚角膜,与NCT和GAT相比,ST可以被认为是一个更可靠的仪器。     

DCT和GAT对LASIK手术前后眼压的比较性研究

目的 评价动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)和Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)对在准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(LASIK)手术前后眼压测量值的变化.方法 取71例141只眼近视患者在LASIK术前和术后一周分别进行角膜厚度(CCT)、GAT、DCT测量.结果 ①LASIK手术前后DCT测得值尤显著性差异(P=0.062),GAT测得值有显著性差异(P＜0.001),CCT测得值有显著性差异(P＜0001).②Bland-Altman分析示LASIK手术前后DCT与GAT两种测量方法均呈现高度一致性.术前DCT测量值高于GAT测量值1.1mmHg,95%可信区间为(-0.6,2.8)mmHg;术后DCT测量值高于GAT测量值8.2mmHg,95%可信区间为(5.3,11.1)mmhg.③△GAT与△CCT呈正相关,△DCT与△CCT无统计相关性.结论 DCT测量值不受LASIK手术切削的影响,更适合于LASIK手术前后眼压的测量.     

三种眼压计与Pentacam眼压校正系统的应用比较

目的:比较非接触式眼压计(NCT)、Goldmann压平式眼压计(GAT)、动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)和Pentacam三维眼前节分析系统四种方法检查眼压的差异,并研究它们与中央角膜厚度(CCT)和中央角膜曲率(CCV)的关系。方法:对拟行LASIK手术的143例286眼患者用Pentacam系统测量CCT和CCV后,分别用NCT,GAT和DCT测量眼压,并用Pentacam系统的Ehlers,Shah,Dresden,Orssengo/Pye和Kohlhaas5种眼压校正方法对NCT眼压值进行校正,将测量结果进行方差分析、相关性及线性回归分析。结果:DCT值最高,DCT与其他方法之间均有显著性差异(P<0.01);GAT与DCT,Kohlhaas,Shah之间有差异(P<0.05),与其他方法之间无差异;各组眼压值之间有较好的相关性,GAT与DCT的相关性最强(r=0.702);NCT受CCT影响最大,GAT受CCV影响最大,DCT,Dresden,Orssengo/Pye,Shah与CCT和CCV均不存在相关性(P>0.05)。结论:对CCT和CCV正常的健康人群进行青光眼筛查时建议使用压平式眼压计,对可疑的患者,尤其是CCT和CCV偏离正常的患者,宜进一步行DCT检查或者用Pentacam系统进行眼压校正。     

PASCAL动态轮廓眼压计临床应用的初步报告

目的:验证动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)的临床性能。方法:对81例143眼青光眼及可疑病例青光眼患者用DCT测量眼内压(IOP);132眼同时用Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)测量眼压,部分病例同时用NIDEKUP-1000型角膜测厚仪测量中央角膜厚度(CCT)。GAT与DCT测量结果采用配对t检验,GAT、DCT测量值与CCT的关系及DCT测量值与眼脉动振幅(OPA)的相关关系采用Spearman双变量相关分析。结果:①DCT和GAT测得的眼压均数分别为(18.6±3.9)mmHg和(17.4±4.1)mmHg;DCT测得的眼压值高于GAT,其差值均数为(1.1±2.3)mmHg;两种眼压计测得的眼压值呈正相关(r=0.83,P<0.01)。②116眼同时完成了DCT眼压测量及CCT测量,两者相关系数r=0.03,P=0.77;113眼同时完成了GAT眼压测量及CCT测量,两者相关系数r=0.28,P=0.003。③143眼同时记录了DCT眼压值和眼脉动振幅(OPA),其均数分别为(18.6±3.9)mmHg和(2.6±1.1)mmHg,两者的相关系数r=0.32,P<0.01。结论:以上结果初步证实:①DCT眼压计测量值与GAT眼压测量值高度相关,但DCT测量值略高于GAT测量值,提示DCT可用于临床诊断。②DCT测量值与CCT不相关,GAT测量值与CCT显著相关,提示DCT在青光眼诊断中有独特优势。③DCT测量的OPA与IOP值显著相关,相关的机制及临床意义有待探讨。     

Goldmann眼压计与非接触眼压计测量青光眼患者眼压的对比分析

目的：：对比分析 Goldmann 压平式眼压计( Goldmann applanation tonometer, GAT)和非接触眼压计( non-contact tonometer,NCT)测量青光眼患者眼压的结果,寻找其规律性。方法：分别使用GAT和NCT测量108例206眼青光眼患者的眼压。结果：青光眼患者108例206眼的平均眼压：GAT测量为29.77±10.27mmHg,NCT测量为24.59±8.58mmHg,两者比较存在显著性差异(P<0.01),而且眼压越高,差异性越显著。结论：NCT 测量值较 GAT 测量值低,眼压越高,差值越大。建议使用GAT检查青光眼患者的眼压,以免漏诊和贻误治疗。     

动态轮廓眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计及非接触眼压计测量眼压的对比研究

目的探讨动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)与Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)及非接触眼压计(NCT)测量眼压的准确性,并比较三种眼压计测量结果与中央角膜厚度(CCT)的相关性。设计前瞻性、比较性病例系列。研究对象连续选取90例(90眼)10~76岁正常人。方法采用KONAN非接触式角膜内皮镜测量CCT后,对所有入选者单眼以随机顺序采用Pascal型DCT、GAT及Topcon型NCT测量眼压。测量结果两两比较,并将眼压值与CCT进行直线回归分析。主要指标眼压值,Pearson相关系数。结果 90例正常人DCT眼压平均值(17.33±2.71 mm Hg)明显高于GAT(14.27±2.81 mm Hg)(P=0.000)及NCT(14.67±2.93 mm Hg)(P=0.000),平均差异分别为(3.06±2.01)mm Hg和(2.67±2.20)mm Hg;GAT与NCT之间平均差异为(-0.39±2.29)mm Hg(P=0.105)。DCT与GAT眼压值之间相关系数r=0.736(P=0.000);与NCT眼压值之间相关系数r=0.699(P=0.000)。GAT、NCT眼压值与CCT均明显相关(r=0.370,P=0.000;r=0.508,P=0.000);DCT眼压值与CCT无明显相关性(r=0.051,P=0.639)。DCT和GAT的差值与年龄无明显相关性(r=0.064,P=0.052)。结论 DCT测量的眼压值虽高于GAT及NCT,但不受CCT的影响,可能较GAT和NCT测量的眼压值更接近真实值。     

Assessment of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer in monitoring intraocular pressure in unoperated eyes and eyes after LASIK

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (PDCT) (Swiss Microtechnology AG) by comparing it to Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and noncontact air tonometry (NCT) before and after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). SETTING: Vlemma Eye Institute, Athens, Greece. METHODS: Intraocular pressure was measured in 118 eyes before and 1 and 4 weeks after LASIK using GAT, NCT, and the PDCT, which allows direct, digital, transcorneal measurement of intraocular pressure. RESULTS: Preoperatively, central corneal thickness (CCT) correlated with GAT and NCT measurements but not with PDCT measurements. After LASIK, the mean reduction in CCT ranged from -3.0 to -171.0 microm (median 78 microm). The mean GAT measurement dropped by -4.9 mm Hg +/- 2.7 (SD) at 1 week and was -5.4 +/- 3.0 mm Hg at 4 weeks. Similar drops were observed in NCT measurements. The observed post-LASIK changes in GAT and NCT IOP measurements were not directly proportional to the change in CCT, refractive error, or mean keratometric readings. The preoperative and postoperative PDCT measurements did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The structural corneal changes induced by LASIK appeared to influence GAT and NCT measurements but not PDCT measurements. Therefore, PDCT may be better suited for monitoring IOP in unoperated eyes and in eyes that have had LASIK.     

Intraocular pressure measurement-comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry

PURPOSE: The dynamic contour tonometer (DCT, Pascal tonometer, Swiss Microtechnology AG, Port, Switzerland) was recently introduced as a new method of intraocular pressure measurement, supposedly independent of corneal properties. In this study we analyzed the agreement and correlation of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and investigated the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal curvature. We also considered preferential patient groups for both methods. METHODS: In a prospective study of 100 eyes without glaucoma, intraocular pressure was measured using dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry, followed by measurements of central corneal thickness and corneal curvature. RESULTS: A clear correlation between dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry was found (r = 0.693; P < 0.001). Dynamic contour tonometry generally resulted in higher intraocular pressure measurements (median difference + 1.8 mm Hg, mean difference + 2.34 mm Hg). Unlike dynamic contour tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry was remarkably affected by central corneal thickness, but neither method was significantly influenced by corneal curvature. Bland-Altman graphs showed remarkable disagreement between dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry, which could be partially explained by the influence of central corneal thickness on Goldmann applanation tonometry. To obtain valid readings, dynamic contour tonometry required a more extensive selection of patients than Goldmann applanation tonometry. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic contour tonometry seems to be a reliable method for intraocular pressure measurement, which unlike Goldmann applanation tonometry is not influenced by central corneal thickness. In clinical practice, advantages from dynamic contour tonometry can be expected for cooperative patients, outpatients, and patients with sufficient bilateral ocular fixation, whereas Goldmann applanation tonometry measurements are more reliable in case of patients with inadequate cooperation, poor vision, or nystagmus.     

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。     

Evaluation of the pressure phosphene tonometer as a self-tonometer

PURPOSE: Different from conventional tonometers, the pressure phosphene tonometer (FPT) measures intraocular pressure (IOP) through the upper eyelid without corneal applanation. We evaluated the usefulness of the FPT as a self-tonometer by comparing FPT IOP readings with those obtained with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). We also evaluated the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements obtained with the two different devices. METHODS: We confirmed the repeatability of FPT measurements in a preliminary study. The main investigation formed part of a prospective clinical trial, in which IOP was measured in 101 eyes of 101 participants (55 normal and 46 glaucomatous eyes) using GAT and FPT. FPT measurements were self-acquired by each participant. CCT was measured with an ultrasonic pachymeter. The agreement between FPT and GAT measurements was evaluated by the method of Bland and Altman. Using individual IOP and CCT values, we determined the correlation coefficients and performed regression analysis. RESULTS: FPT met the British Standard criteria for reproducibility. Among 101 participants, seven patients with glaucoma were unable to detect the pressure phosphene and to measure IOP using the FPT. By the statistical method of Bland and Altman there was a significant difference between FPT readings self-measured by the remaining 94 participants and GAT readings obtained by an ophthalmologist. There was no correlation between FPT and CCT readings in 65 participants with no prior history of anti-glaucoma medications or glaucoma surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Self-tonometer FPT readings differed from GAT readings. However, we suggest that the FPT may be a clinically acceptable device because it enables patients to self-measure their IOP easily and safely. As FPT readings are not affected by CCT, this tonometer may be of clinical and practical value for the at-will measurement of IOP in patients with corneal changes.     

The iCare rebound tonometer: comparisons with Goldmann tonometry, and influence of central corneal thickness

Purpose:  To assess agreement between the iCare rebound tonometer and Goldmann tonometry and to assess the influence of central corneal thickness and the value of scleral rebound tonometer readings.
Methods:  Prospective single-centre cross-sectional study comparing iCare rebound tonometer (RT) intraocular pressure (IOP) readings taken from corneal and scleral locations to Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) readings in 100 subjects attending ophthalmology clinics.
Results:  There was a significant difference between RT and GAT, with RT tending to overestimate IOP. The mean difference between RT and GAT measurements was 3.36 mmHg. The mean difference between the log of RT and the log of GAT measurements was 0.2356, a ratio of 1.27 ( P  < 0.0001). A formula derived from a linear regression analysis suggested that a 10% increase in CCT increased the RT IOP reading by 9.9%. Scleral RT readings showed no relationship to GAT readings.
Conclusions:  The rebound tonometer cannot replace the Goldmann tonometer in the office setting given the wide limits of agreement between the two devices. Corneal rebound tonometer readings are influenced by CCT whereas scleral rebound tonometer readings are of no value.     

Comparison of the rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients

PURPOSE: To determine the agreement between the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) by the rebound tonometer (RBT) and by the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and to find out the effect of central corneal thickness (CCT) values on IOP measurements in glaucoma patients. METHODS: IOP was measured with the RBT and GAT, respectively, in 61 eyes of 61 glaucoma patients. CCT was measured using an ultrasonic pachymeter after all IOP determinations had been made. The mean IOP measurement by the RBT was compared with the measurement by the GAT, by Student's t-test. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the clinical agreement between the two methods. The effect of CCT on measured IOP was explored by linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 56.7+/-21.1 years (range: 30-80 years). There were 32 (52.46%) women and 29 (47.54%) men in the study group. The mean IOP readings were 18.70+/-4.76 mmHg using the RBT, and 18.27+/-3.49 mmHg using the GAT. The difference was not statistically significant (mean difference 0.43+/-2.55, P=0.2). A frequency distribution of the differences demonstrated that in more than 80% of cases the IOP readings differed by <2.3 mmHg between the RBT and GAT. There was a strong correlation between the RBT and GAT readings (r=0.852, P<0.0001). The IOP measurements with the two methods were correlated with CCT (r=0.40, P=0.02 for the RBT and r=0.48, P<0.0001 for the GAT). The IOP increased 1.1 mmHg and 8 mmHg for every 100-microm increase in CCT for the GAT and RBT, respectively. CONCLUSION: The RBT slightly overestimated the IOP value by 0.43 mmHg on average when compared with the GAT. Nevertheless, the RBT readings appeared to be more affected by the various thicknesses of different corneas when compared with those obtained using the GAT.     

Pentacam系统对LASIK手术前后眼压测量值的修正

目的评价Pentaeam三维眼前节分析诊断系统对准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术（LASIK）前后眼压测量值校正的准确性。方法将105例（208眼）拟行LASIK的患者于术前和术后12个月分别行Pentacam三维眼前节分析系统检查和Goldmann压平眼压测量,并用Pentacam系统所提供的5种校正方法对眼压测量值进行校正。结果208眼LASIK术前眼压（15．75±2．59）mmHg,术后（10．78±2．27）mmHg,术后眼压明显低于术前（P〈0．01）;在Pentacam系统校正眼压的方法中除Kohlhaas法外,均只依据角膜顶点厚度对眼压进行校正。在5种修正方法中,Ehlers、Shah和Dresden法的眼压修正值与角膜厚度成负相关;Orssengo／Pye法的校正值随角膜厚度的增减依指数曲线关系变化;Kohlhaas法依据不同的角膜厚度和角膜曲率对眼压测量值进行校正。经Pentacam系统校正后,只有Ehlers法校正的眼压术前、术后差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论Pentacam三维眼前节分析诊断系统根据角膜厚度和／或角膜曲率校正眼压测量值,LASIK术后建议使用Ehlers法对眼压测量值进行修正,有助于对可疑青光眼和眼压异常者进行判断。     

Effects of central corneal thickness and corneal curvature on the intraocular pressure measurement by Goldmann applanation tonometer and ocular blood flow pneumatonometer

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal curvature (CC) on the measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) using Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and the ocular blood flow pneumatonometer (OBFT). METHODS: 104 patients were recruited from a glaucoma clinic. The CCT was measured using ultrasound pachymetry and the mean radius of CC using a keratometer. The IOP of each eye was measured using both GAT and the OBFT in a random order. Right eyes only were analysed for statistical purposes. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) IOP by GAT and OBFT was 18.2 mmHg (+/-4.4) and 18.2 mmHg (+/-4.0), respectively, with no statistically significant difference. IOP measurement with both instruments varied with CCT and CC. GAT showed an IOP increase of 0.40 mmHg per 10 microm increase of CCT and OBFT showed an increase of 0.38 mmHg in IOP per 10 microm increase of CCT. Multiple regression analysis showed that the effect of CCT was statistically significant (P<0.001) on IOP recorded by both the GAT and OBFT but CC did not have a statistically significant effect on IOP recordings performed by either technique. CONCLUSION: IOP measurements by GAT and OBFT are positively correlated with CCT with both tonometers being similarly affected. There was no significant correlation between CC and IOP measured by either tonometer.