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。     

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眼压计测量人角膜不同部位眼压的比较

目的:用Tono-Pen眼压计测量人眼角膜中央、旁中央、角巩缘部位眼压值,比较不同部位值的差异及相关性。方法:正常角膜用Tono-Pen眼压计依次测量角膜中心、旁中心、角膜缘眼压值,方差分析不同部位眼压的差异,分析结果的相关性。结果:Tono-Pen眼压计检测得出的眼压平均值角膜中央为16.28±2.73mmHg,旁中央为16.33±2.69mmHg,角巩缘为16.58±2.58mmHg.角膜中心与旁中心的相关系数r=0.966,P=0.000,角膜中心与角膜缘的相关系数为r=0.897,P=0.000,角膜旁中心与角膜缘的相关系数为r=0.910,P=0.000。不同部位眼压值差异没有显著性(F=0.093,P=0.913>0.05)。结论:不同部位眼压值密切相关,差异没有统计学意义。Tono-Pen眼压计测量不同部位眼压均可取得较为一致的结果。     

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。     

Tono-pen眼压计与Goldmann眼压计对穿透性小梁切除术后患者眼压测量的比较

目的:寻找穿透性小梁切除术后患者眼压测量的简单方法。方法:随机选取行穿透性小梁切除术后3d的患者120例120眼。分别用Goldmann眼压计和Tono-pen眼压计测量眼压,比较两种眼压测量值的差异。结果:120眼中,Goldmann眼压计所测量眼压的平均数值14.69±4.60mmHg。Tono-pen所测眼压的平均数值14.72±4.62mmHg。经统计学检验,P>0.05,Tono-pen眼压计与Goldman眼压计的测量结果无显著性差异。对于穿透性小梁切除术后的眼压测量,Tonopen眼压计与Goldman眼压计的测量结果有高度相关性。Tono-pen眼压计可以准确地估计眼压值。结论:对于穿透性小梁切除术后的的患者眼压在7～32mmHg间时Tono-pen眼压计可以作为一种准确测量眼压的简单方法。     

Tono-Pen眼压计对兔眼不同部位眼压测量值的相关性研究

目的 研究兔眼球不同部位眼压测量值的相关性规律。方法 采用Tono—pen眼压计在全身麻醉下测量40只新西兰白兔角膜中央、旁中央区、角膜缘及巩膜部位眼压值，同时采用Schioetz眼压计测量角膜中央眼压值。采用SPSS软件分析不同部位眼压测量值间的相关性。结果 兔角膜中央区、旁中央区、角膜缘及角膜缘后4mm巩膜部位眼压值分别为（19．44±2．33）mmHg、（19．44±1．95）mmHg、（21．66±4．26）mmHg和（21．83±4．84）mmHg，Schioetz眼压计测量角膜中央眼压值为（19．27±3．14）mmHg。角膜旁中央区与角膜中央区眼压值有相关性．检验有统计学意义（r=0．615，P=0．007），而角膜缘、角膜缘后4mm巩膜与角膜中央区眼压值相关系数r及P值分别为0．537／0．021．0．215／0．391。结论 采用Tono-Pen眼压计测量兔眼角膜旁中央区或角膜缘眼压可以反映眼压实际值．     

Tono-Pen眼压计对兔眼不同部位眼压测量值的相关性研究

目的研究兔眼球不同部位测量眼压(intraocular pressure,IOP)值的相关性规律。方法采用Tono-Pen眼压计全身麻醉下测量40只新西兰白兔角膜中央、旁中央区、角膜缘及巩膜部位IOP值,同时采用Schiotz眼压计测量角膜中央IOP值。采用SPSS软件分析不同部位IOP测量值间的相关性。结果兔角膜中央区、旁中央区、角膜缘及角膜缘后4mm巩膜部位IOP值分别为(19.44±2.33)mmHg(1kPa=7.5mmHg)、(19.44±1.95)mmHg、(21.66±4.26)mmHg和(21.83±4.84)mmHg,Schiotz眼压计测量角膜中央IOP值(19.27±3.14)mmHg。角膜旁中央区与角膜中央区IOP值有相关性,检验有统计学意义(R=0.615,P=0.007<0.01),而角膜缘、角膜缘后4mm巩膜与角膜中央区IOP值相关系数及P值分别为0.537/0.021、0.215/0.391。结论采用Tono-Pen眼压计测量兔眼角膜旁中央区或角膜缘眼压可以反映眼压实际值。     

凸面眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计C值测量结果比较

目的比较我们自行研制的凸面眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计(以下简称Goldmann眼压计)所测量的C值,以评价凸面眼压计在临床的应用价值。方法分别应用凸面眼压计与Goldmann眼压计测量15例(30只眼)正常人的C值;15例(15只眼)青光眼患者的C值,并作统计学分析。结果凸面眼压计C值是Goldmann眼压计C值的两倍,两种眼压计C值测量结果差异有显著性意义(P<0.01)。结论用凸面眼压计所测得的C值更接近于流体压力方法测得的C值,因此凸面眼压计更适合于眼压描记,具有临床使用价值。     

Tono-Pen眼压计与Gol dmann眼压计的对比研究

Ｔｏｎｏ Ｐｅｎ眼压计是一种电子压平眼压计 ,它体积小 ,操作简单 ,使用方便 ,不需裂隙灯和荧光素且准确可靠 ,特别在Ｇｏｌｄｍａｎｎ眼压计使用受到限制时更有其优点。本文旨在探讨在正常角膜条件下 ,Ｔｏｎｏ Ｐｅｎ眼压计的准确性 ,为其临床应用 ,特别是在角膜移植术后测量眼压时提供理论依据和实践经验。1　资料与方法1.1　一般资料　从我院青光眼门诊连续选择双眼角膜正常患者共 86例 172眼 ,其中男 41例 82眼 ,女 45例 90眼 ,年龄 5岁到 83岁 ,平均 5 0岁。Ｇｏｌｄｍａｎｎ眼压计为瑞士产ＨＡＡＧ ＳＴＲＥＩＴ 90 0型 ,安装在瑞士…     

Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer over a wide IOP range

Background The aim of this study was to compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) results measured by the iCare rebound tonometer with those obtained by the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) over a wide range of IOP values. Furthermore, the comfort level of the iCare measurement was evaluated. Method The study included 75 eyes of 75 patients. The patients were divided into three groups (7–15 mmHg n = 25, 16–22 mmHg n = 25, 23–60 mmHg n = 25). The measurements were taken by two independent observers in a masked fashion. All patients were asked about discomfort during the iCare measurement. To establish the agreement between the two devices, a Bland-Altman analysis was performed. Results Overall, the 95% confidence interval of the differences between the two devices was −8.67 to 10.25 mmHg and in 62.7%, the iCare measurement was within ±3 mmHg of the GAT measurements. The distribution of the differences in IOP was similar, from 7–22 mmHg. In the higher IOP range (23–60 mmHg), however, the deviation was almost twice as large. The measurement with the iCare tonometer was well tolerated; 100% of the patients denied any discomfort. Conclusions The iCare tonometer is a mobile alternative to GAT in a low to moderate IOP range, but our findings show a greater deviation than previously reported. In high IOP values, measurements with the iCare tonometer do not correlate well with GAT.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

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。     

iCare回弹式眼压计测量的重复性及与Goldmann压平式眼压计测量值间的一致性研究

背景Goldmann压平式眼压计（GAT）是眼压测量的金标准,但由于操作复杂且需要良好配合而影响其临床应用。iCare回弹式眼压计（RBT）是一种新型的压平式眼压计,但需进行充分的临床应用评价。目的对iCareRBT检查者间及检查者内测量的可重复性及iCareRBT与GAT测量值间的一致性进行研究。方法2位操作者使用iCareRBT对36例青光眼及可疑青光眼患者双眼各测量1次,分别记录读数,对iCareRBT检查者间的重复性进行评价。2位操作者使用iCareRBT分别测量56例青光眼和52例青光眼患者,并对可疑青光眼患者的双眼进行测量,并记录眼压读数,对iCareRBT检查者内的重复性进行评价。检查者2对青光眼及可疑青光眼患者92例182眼先使用iCareRBT进行测量,然后检查者1使用Goldmann压平式眼压计进行测量,对iCareRBT和GAT的测量值进行一致性检验,并评价iCareRBT测量眼压的安全性。结果iCareRBT检查者间眼压测量值相关因子r右眼为0．937,左眼为0．887;检查者1对右眼和左眼重复测量眼压值的r值分别为0．986、0．969,检查者2所测右眼和左眼的r值分别为0．990、0．979;iCareRBT测量值与CAT测量值的均值分别为（18．74±8．36）mmHg、（19．33±8．20）mmHg,二者差值为（-0．59±2．60）mmHg,95％CI为（-5．80～4．60）,2种测量法相关因子r为0．951。所有受试者对iCareRBT的测量无不适反应。结论iCareRBT具有检查者间和检查者内的高度可重复性及很好的耐受性,iCareRBT测量值与GAT测量值间具有高度相关性。     

非接触式眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计测量眼压值一致性的Meta分析

背景 非接触式眼压计(NCT)是临床常见的眼压测量设备,其测量值受角膜参数等多种因素的影响,近年有临床研究针对NCT与“金标准”Goldmann眼压计(GAT)测量眼压值一致性的报道,但尚缺乏循证评价. 目的 从循证医学的角度评价NCT与GAT测量眼压值的一致性. 方法 采用严密制定的检索策略检索MEDLINE、EMbase、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库文献,检索年限为从各数据库建库至2016年6月.按照纳入和排除标准筛选文献,提取样本量、平均年龄、样本特征、随访时间、NCT与GAT眼压测量等数据.使用Cochrane协作网提供的Review Manager 5.3.0软件进行合并效应量的检测,6篇文献间经I2检验存在异质性,采用随机效应模型校正后对NCT与GAT测量的眼压值进行分析. 结果 初步检索共获得24篇文献,筛选后共纳入NCT与GAT测量眼压值的比较研究6篇,总样本量为478眼.采用随机效应模型校正后,NCT的眼压测量值较GAT眼压测量值高0.02 mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa),差异无统计学意义[加权均数差(WMD)=0.02,95％可信区间(CI):-0.59 ～ 0.63,P=0.95].漏斗图法显示文献存在发表偏倚.结论 NCT与GAT测量正常人群眼压结果具有较好的一致性,但尚需更多大样本比较研究提供支持.     

Comparison of the new rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in a clinical setting

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical usefulness of a new rebound tonometer, Icare^® PRO (Icare PRO), by comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in a study on patients with glaucoma. Methods: One hundred and seventy‐two eyes of 86 subjects were enrolled in this study. All of the subjects were examined with an autorefractometer, Icare PRO, slit‐lamp biomicroscope, GAT, ultrasound A‐scan and pachymeter. Three intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements were obtained by Icare PRO and GAT. The intraobserver reliabilities were established by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients. The Bland–Altman plot was used to compare the Icare PRO and GAT. Results: There was a good correlation between the IOP measurement by GAT and that by Icare PRO (r = 0.6995, p < 0.001). The intraclass correlation coefficients of Icare PRO and GAT were 0.778 and 0.955, respectively. The IOP differences between Icare PRO and GAT (mean: 1.92 mmHg; SD: 3.29 mmHg; 95% limit of agreement: ?4.52 to 8.37 mmHg) did not vary over the wide range of central corneal thickness (p = 0.498), age (p = 0.248), axial length (p = 0.277) or spherical equivalent (p = 0.075). Conclusions: Although IOP with Icare PRO was higher than that with GAT, especially at lower GAT IOP value, Icare PRO was found to be a reliable method and showed a good correlation with GAT. The IOP difference between Icare PRO and GAT was not affected by the central corneal thickness, age, axial length or spherical equivalent. Icare PRO can be expected not only to be a good screening tool but also to be a good substitute for GAT.     

新型非接触式眼压分析仪ORA与Goldmann压平眼压计的比较

目的比较新型非接触式眼压分析仪ORA与Goldmann压平式眼压计测量眼压的差异,以评价ORA眼压测量仪在临床眼压测量中的应用价值。方法本院门诊127例237眼分别由专人进行非接触眼压测量仪ORA与Goldmann压平式眼压计测量,并同时用超声角膜测厚仪测量角膜厚度。结果127例病人237眼,Goldmann压平眼压值和ORA直接测量结果（IOPG）分别为（17.94±6.50）mmHg和（18.88±7.93）mmHg,两者比较差异有显著统计学意义（P=0.000）;正常人群平均角膜厚度为（546.19±36.34）μm,经角膜厚度-眼压公式校正IOPG平均值为17.42±3.92mmHg,ORA经自带软件处理后的眼压值（IOPcc）平均为（17.50±4.38）mmHg,两者比较差异无统计学意义（P=0.681）,IOPG校正前两者比较差异有统计学意义（P=0.024）。结论新型非接触式眼压分析仪ORA的直接测量值与Goldmann压平眼压计的测量值相近略高,ORA的测量分析值IOPcc是排除角膜因素影响更接近真实的眼压结果。