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。     

国产回弹式眼压计的临床评价

目的 通过比较国产回弹式眼压计(rebounder tonometer,RBT)与Goldmann压平式眼压计(Goldmann applanation tonometer,GAT)的差别来评价RBT测量的准确性,通过计算测量者间和测量者内的差异来评价其精确性,探讨其临床应用价值.方法 选择2009年6月至12月在北京同仁医院眼压监测室接受昼夜眼压曲线测量的可疑青光眼患者69例138眼.其中,男40例,女29例,年龄(40.0±22.4)岁.所有患者均按RBT、GAT的顺序分别由两名检查者完成眼压测量,每种眼压计的测量均重复3次.分别记录并计算平均数作为该种眼压计的测量结果.测量者一、二需在5 min内完成眼压的测量.比较两位测量者间的差值评价RBT的精确性,比较两种眼压计测量结果间的差值评价RBT的准确性.并分析眼压高低及中央角膜厚度对RBT准确性的影响.结果 RBT和GAT所测右眼的眼压值分别为(20.0±5.1)mmHg(1 kPa=7.5 mmHg)和(20.4±5.2)mmHg,差值为(0.4±2.5)mmHg,二者比较,差异无统计学意义(t=1.211,P=0.230).RBT和GAT所测左眼的眼压值分别为(20.5±4.7)mmHg和(20.4±4.8)mmHg,差值为(0.1±2.0)mmHg,二者比较,差异也无统计学意义(t=-0.318,P=0.751).两种眼压计所测眼压之间均有明显相关.左、右两眼r值分别为0.878(P=0.000)和0.912(P=0.000).RBT不同测量者间的差异不具有显著性,测量者间相关系数在左、右眼分别为0.956和0.939,有较好的一致性.RBT测量者内相关系数在0.978～0.991,与GAT的结果接近.低眼压患者RBT的值大于GAT,高眼压患者RBT值小于GAT,正常眼压时两种仪器测得眼压的差值最小;中央角膜厚度较薄时RBT值偏低,中央角膜厚度较厚时RBT值偏高.结论 RBT的准确性和精确性可以满足临床工作的需求.     

iCare回弹式眼压计的临床应用评价

目的比较iCare回弹式眼压计（RBT）测量的眼压值与Goldmann压平眼压计（GAT）测量眼压值的差异,评价RBT测量眼压的可靠性及可重复性。方法对正常志愿者9例9眼同时使用iCareRBT和GAT进行测量,比较二者眼压测量结果的重复性。对GAT眼压在正常范围内的受试者（包括可疑青光眼患者和眼压控制良好的青光眼患者）45例45眼分别用RBT和GAT进行测量,使用配对t检验、相关分析及Bland-Altman图一致性检验等方法比较二者测量结果的一致性。由2位操作者使用同一台RBT对13位正常志愿者13眼进行测量,通过组内相关系数比较各自测量结果的重复性,从而评价不同操作者对iCareRBT测量结果的影响,模拟真实临床工作环境。结果 RBT组眼压读数的组内相关系数为0.821（95%CI：0.553～0.952）,GAT组眼压读数的组内相关系数为0.846（95%CI：0.604～0.959）,表明2种仪器的测量重复性均较好,但尚不能说明何种更好。RBT和GAT测得的眼压分别为（14.42±3.49）mmHg和（16.18±2.68）mmHg,二者呈正相关（r=0.684,P〈0.01）;但RBT所测的眼压读数略低于GAT,差异有统计学意义（t=4.601,P〈0.01）。Bland-Altman图显示二者的差值为（-1.76±2.56）mmHg,95%CI：（-6.77～3.26）。使用RBT所测眼压值的组内相关系数分别为0.827（95%CI：0.626～0.938）和0.697（95%CI：0.413～0.884）。结论 RBT与GAT所测得的眼压值在正常范围内,具有较好的相关性,2种眼压计测量的重复性均较好,而不同操作者测量的重复性不完全一致。     

Icare回弹式眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计眼压测量结果的比较

背景Icare回弹式眼压计作为一种新式眼压计,有必要对它的临床应用价值进行评估。目的通过比较分析Icare回弹式眼压计和Goldmann压平眼压计（GAT）的眼压测量结果,探讨Icare的临床价值。方法可疑青光眼、青光眼、屈光不正及部分健康体检者78例共152眼同时接受Icare、GAT眼压测量,受检眼先行Icare测量,然后再进行GAT测量,2次测量间隔3～5min。对比分析两种眼压计的测量结果。结果使用Icare和GAT测得的眼压均值分别为（19．16±5．03）mmHg和（18．41±4．52）mmHg,96眼（63．2％）两者的眼压差值≤1mmHg,二者的测量值差异虽有统计学意义,但二者的变化呈明显正相关（r=0．940,P〈0．01）。当Icare眼压测量值〈16mmHg时,Icare的眼压测量值低于GAT,而当Icare眼压测量值≥16mmHg时恰好相反;CCT偏薄、正常以及偏厚的情况下,Icare的眼压测量值均高于GAT的眼压测量值。Icare、GAT的眼压测量值和CCT间呈正相关（r=0．341,P〈0．01;r=0．333,P〈0．01）。结论与GAT眼压计比较,Icare回弹式眼压计易操作,测量结果可靠,临床实用性更强。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

动态轮廓眼压计在正常人群中的应用及其影响因素分析

目的评价动态轮廓眼压计（DCT）与Goldmann压平眼压计（GAT）测量值之间的关系,寻找DCT眼压测量值的影响因素;分析DCT所测眼压脉动振幅（OPA）与DCT眼压值、中央角膜厚度（CCT）、角膜屈光力（CCV）、眼轴长度（AL）、前房深度（ACD）、收缩压（SBP）、舒张压（DBP）和心率（HR）的关系。方法分别测量正常人60例60眼的DCT眼压、GAT眼压、CCT、CCV、AL、ACD以及HR、SBP、DBP等指标,比较GAT、DCT2种眼压计测量的相关性及DCT测量值的影响因素。结果 DCT与GAT所测眼压平均值分别为（16.04±2.57）mmHg和（14.20±2.93）mmHg。DCT眼压值较GAT眼压值高,差异有统计学意义（t=6.454,P〈0.01）。DCT眼压值与GAT眼压值呈正相关（r=0.684,P〈0.01）。DCT眼压值与CCT不相关（r=0.212,P=0.105）,GAT眼压值与CCT呈正相关（r=0.291,P=0.024）。60例正常人的OPA均值为（2.50±0.89）mmHg,OPA与年龄、DCT眼压值、CCT、SBP、DBP、HR均不相关（P〉0.05）,与CCV呈正相关（r=0.343,P=0.007）。结论在正常人群中DCT眼压值与GAT眼压值有较好的相关性,DCT的眼压测量值不受CCT、CCV等因素的影响。DCT眼压值、CCT、SBP、DBP、HR等对OPA无明显影响。     

中央角膜厚度对Goldmann眼压计与非接触式眼压计测量值的影响

目的探讨中央角膜厚度（CCT）对Goldmann眼压计与非接触式眼压计（NCT）眼压测量值的影响。方法分别用Goldmann眼压计与NCT测量83例（83只眼）正常人的眼压,采用光学相干断层扫描仪（OCT）测量CCT。采用配对T检验比较Goldmann眼压计与NCT眼压计眼压测量值的差异,采用线性相关分析方法分析两种眼压计眼压测量值之间的相关关系,并分析CCT对两种眼压计眼压测量值的影响。结果Goldmann眼压计测得的眼压平均值为（13.46±2.93）mmHg,NCT测得的平均值为（12.29±3.47）mmHg,两者之间差异有显著性（t=5.831,P〈0.001）;两种眼压计眼压测量值呈正相关（r=0.852,P〈0.001）。Goldmann眼压计眼压测量值和NCT眼压测量值均与CCT呈正相关,r值分别为0.424（P〈0.001）和0.568（P〈0.001）。Goldmann眼压计眼压测量值与NCT眼压测量值的差值与CCT呈负相关（r=-0.402,P〈0.001）。去除CCT因素影响后,两种眼压计眼压测量值的残差差异无显著性（t=-0.272,P=0.787）。结论Goldmann眼压计与NCT眼压计眼压测量值均受CCT的影响，CCT对NCT眼压测量值的影响更大；两种眼压计眼压测量值的差异可能来源于个体CCT的差异。     

三种不同眼压计眼压测量值的比较

目的:比较分析Icare回弹式眼压计、GAT和DCT的眼压测量结果,探讨Icare回弹式眼压计的临床性能。方法:78例152眼分别用Icare,GAT,DCT3种眼压计进行眼压测量,然后根据测得的眼压高低分为高眼压、中眼压、低眼压3个组,对比分析3种眼压计的测量结果。结果:在全部受测者中Icare,GAT,DCT测得的眼压均值分别为19.16±5.03mmHg,18.41±4.52mmHg和17.23±3.69mmHg,每两种眼压计相比均有显著差别,但是彼此之间密切相关。高、中、低3个眼压组两种眼压计之间的差值均随着眼压的增高而增大。结论:使用Icare测量的眼压值准确可信,Icare,GAT和DCT的眼压值彼此之间具有良好的相关性。     

Performance of the rebound,noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers in routine clinical practice

Purpose: To compare rebound tonometry (RBT) and noncontact tonometry (NCT) using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) as reference. Methods: The study sample was comprised of 108 eyes of 108 subjects consecutively examined at a general ophthalmology clinic. The order of use of the three tonometers was randomized at the study outset. The difference between the methods was plotted against the mean to compare the tonometers. The hypothesis of zero bias was examined by a paired t‐test and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were also calculated. Differences with respect to GAT were assessed according to the international standard for ocular tonometers (ISO 8612). Results: Mean intraocular pressures (IOPs ± SD) obtained using the three instruments were GAT 17.5 ± 3.8 mmHg; RBT 18.5 ± 5.5 mmHg and NCT 17.4 ± 5.6 mmHg. The 95% LoA were from ?7.9 to +7.7 mmHg for NCT–GAT and from ?6.8 mmHg to +8.7 mmHg for RBT–GAT. A difference with respect to GAT under ±1 mmHg was observed in 11.1% of the eyes measured by NCT and 18.5% of eyes measured by RBT. According to the IOP ranges established by the ISO 8612, differences from GAT measurements greater than ±5 mmHg were always above the accepted level of 5%. Correlations between IOP and central corneal thickness (CCT) were significant for all three tonometers. Conclusions: The rebound and noncontact tonometer behaved similarly when used to measure IOP taking GAT measurements as the reference standard. Neither tonometer fulfilled ISO 8612 requirements. Both were similarly influenced by CCT.     

Real-world comparison between the Tonopen and Goldmann applanation tonometry in a university glaucoma clinic

Purpose

To determine whether Tonopen intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements by Ophthalmic technicians are interchangeable with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) by a specialist in our glaucoma clinic.

Methods

Ophthalmic technician Tonopen and glaucoma specialist GAT IOP measurements were performed on both undilated eyes of 300 consecutive patients during the same visit to our glaucoma clinic.

Results

Among all 600 eyes of 300 patients (age 65.4, range: 23–92 years, male: 44.3%), Tonopen and GAT IOPs were similar (15.5?±?0.6 vs. 15.4?±?0.7 mmHg, respectively, p?=?0.63) and directly correlated (r²?=?0.58, p?<?0.0001). However, among 120 patients with bilateral primary open-angle glaucoma GAT IOP was significantly higher than Tonopen in the right eyes (17.1?±?1.1 vs. 16.2?±?0.9 mmHg, p?=?0.024) and in the left eyes (17.0?±?1.0 vs. 16.3?±?1.0 mmHg, p?=?0.029). In all 300 right eyes, Tonopen underestimated IOP in 48.3% of eyes and overestimated in 39% (difference range: (???)14 to (?+?)12 mmHg), with IOP difference?>??±?3 mmHg in 34% of eyes. In eyes with GAT IOP?≥?22 mmHg, Tonopen IOP was significantly lower (24.7?±?2.6, range: 11–43 mmHg vs. 28.2?±?2.2, range: 22–43 mmHg, p?=?0.0002, mean difference:???3.6?±?1.7 mmHg), and the Tonopen measured IOP?≤?21 mmHg in 33.3% of eyes. In eyes with Tonopen IOP?≤?10 mmHg GAT measured IOP of 11–17 mmHg in 65.7% of eyes.

Conclusions

Tonopen may mask a third of eyes with elevated IOP and two third of eyes with potentially above-goal IOP. The Tonopen may not be interchangeable with GAT or sufficiently reliable for patient management or screening in our glaucoma clinic. However, further study is recommended to assess the limitations of the Tonopen IOP measurements in eyes with higher or lower GAT IOPs.

Clinical Trials Registration

The Institutional review board, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY does not require this retrospective study to register.

     

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.     

Comparison of the Proview pressure phosphene tonometer performed by the patient and examiner with the Goldmann applanation tonometer

Objective: To compare the results of Proview pressure phosphene tonometry (PPPT) performed by the patient and an examiner with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). Methods: A comparative case series of 96 (192 eyes) consecutive patients from a glaucoma clinic was conducted. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured with GAT by one examiner, PPPT by another examiner, and PPPT by the patient. All examiners were masked to the results from any preceding IOP measurement. Results: The coefficient of repeatability for repeated measurements for the GAT was ±0.48 mmHg. The limits of agreement for self‐measurement of IOP with the PPPT and examiner measured IOP with PPPT were 6.3 mmHg and 4.8 mmHg, respectively. The limits of agreement between GAT and self assessed PPPT were ±11.8 mmHg (mean difference of 0.63 mmHg). When the same comparison was made between GAT and examiner assessed PPPT, the results were limits of agreement of ±10 mmHg (mean difference of 2.86 mmHg). No significant difference was identified in the agreement of the GAT and the PPPT when subanalysed for age of patient or diagnosis (P > 0.05). The limits of agreement between self‐assessed IOP with the PPPT and the GAT were ±8.2 for those with IOP <20 mmHg and ±14.9 mmHg for those with IOP>20 mmHg. Conclusions: Poor agreement exists between IOP measured by GAT and PPPT measured by an examiner or by the patient.     

非接触式和Goldmann压平眼压计测量结果的一致性分析

目的：在原发性开角型青光眼（ POAG ）中应用佳能TX-F非接触式眼压计（ NCT）和Goldmann压平眼压计（ GAT）测量眼压（ IOP）,并比较测量值。 方法：55例（55右眼）确诊为POAG的患者接受详细的眼科检查,光学相干断层扫描成像和自动视野检查。使用NCT1（一次喷气模式）, NCT3（三次喷气模式）和GAT测量眼压,每隔5分钟一次。 结果：55例（55右眼） POAG 患者平均年龄为64.1±8.1岁。比较NTC1,NTC3测量的眼压值（14.22±3.42,14.28±3.29mmHg）与GAT测量的眼压值（14.66±3.49mmHg）无统计学差异（ P=0.291）。使用Bland-Altman 方法比较NCT1-GAT, NCT3-GAT和NCT1-NCT3得出的95%一致性界限（IOA）分别为-4.9~＋4.4mmHg,-4.1~＋3.4mmHg和-3.4~＋3.3 mmHg。 结论：虽然NCT与GAT测量的眼压值相似,但偏大的IOA范围限制了NCT1,NCT3和GAT在POAG患者中的互换应用。     

非接触式眼压计与回弹式眼压计在眼压测量中的准确度分析

目的：分析非接触式眼压计(non contact tonometer,NCT)、ICare回弹式眼压计(ICare rebound tonometer,RBT)在青光眼患者中眼压测量结果的准确性。

方法：回顾性病例对照研究。选取青光眼患者113例185眼。用RBT、NCT和Goldmann眼压计(GAT)分别于9：00、16：00两次进行眼压测量并记录为两组数据,分别用秩和检验、国际标准8621指南评估其准确性,Bland-Altman一致性分析两组测量结果的一致性,并以GAT测量值作为标准将数据分为异常眼压组(<10mmHg或>21mmHg)和正常眼压组(10～21mmHg),在不同组间分析其一致性。应用Spearman相关分析眼压计间的相关性。

结果：GAT、NCT和RBT三组测量值间存在差异(P<0.01); GAT获得的眼压测量值与RBT和NCT测量值间存在相关性(r_s=0.71、0.77,P<0.001)。NCT与GAT测量值接近(P=0.92),而RBT与GAT相比,眼压测量值较高(P<0.05)。然而NCT、RBT同GAT相比一致性界限范围均较宽,分别为-6.2～6.0、-5.2～7.6mmHg,在正常眼压组一致性界限范围分别为-5.9～5.9、-4.3～7.5mmHg,在非正常眼压组分别为-7.3～6.4、-7.5～5.6mmHg。根据ISO 8612指南进行评价,NCT和RBT在三组中超过95%的一致性限制的异常值分别为3.9%、11.3%、12.2%和26.3%、11.3%、12.2%。

结论：NCT和RBT均不能简单代替GAT用于青光眼患者眼压的测量。在青光眼患者中,随着测量值偏离正常眼压范围,NCT和RBT的测量误差也有所增大。     

三种眼压计测量高眼压儿童眼压及其与中央角膜厚度的关系

目的：探讨经Topcon眼压计(non-contact tonometry,NCT)初筛高眼压的屈光不正儿童的中央角膜厚度(central corneal thickness,CCT)分布,以及NCT、Goldmann压平眼压计(Goldmann applanation tonometry,GAT)与OCULUS Corvis ST角膜生物力学分析仪(CST)所测眼压值的差异,并分析眼压和CCT的相关性。

方法：选择经NCT测量单眼或双眼眼压高于21mmHg的非青光眼屈光不正儿童39例78眼,用CST和GAT再次进行眼压测量,两种仪器的测量顺序随机,同时用CST测量CCT并根据CCT进行眼压校正。根据CCT分成正常组和较厚组,分析经NCT初筛高眼压的屈光不正儿童的总体CCT分布情况,探讨三种仪器所测眼压值的不同及其与CCT的相关性。

结果：正常CCT组,CST低于GAT和NCT的眼压测量值,差异有统计学意义(F=5.12,P=0.01); 较厚组,三种眼压测量方式的眼压测量值比较,差异均有统计学意义(F=15.72,P<0.001)。NCT和GAT眼压值与CCT呈明显正相关(r_NCT=0.298,P_NCT=0.04; r_GAT=0.408,P_GAT= 0.01); CST校正眼压值与CCT无明显相关性(r_CST=0.062,P_CST=0.593)。

结论：NCT初筛高眼压的屈光不正儿童的CCT偏厚,CST校正眼压低于NCT和Goldmann眼压,NCT和GAT所测眼压与CCT呈正相关; 对于CCT偏厚的儿童患者,CST校正眼压比NCT和GAT更接近于真实眼压值。     

Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma practice

Purpose: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) readings taken using dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) with IOP readings taken with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in eyes with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Methods: The present study included 100 eyes in 100 patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. After pachymetry DCT and GAT were performed. Intraocular pressures as measured with DCT and GAT were compared with one another and with central corneal thickness (CCT). Results: Mean DCT IOP measurements (20.1 ± 4.3 mmHg) were significantly (p < 0.001) higher than GAT IOP values (17.9 ± 4.7 mmHg). The mean difference between DCT and GAT measurements was 2.1 mmHg (range ? 3.4 to 9.7 mmHg). The difference followed a normal distribution. Measurements made with DCT and GAT correlated significantly with one another (Spearman’s rho = 0.761, p < 0.001). Neither GAT nor DCT measurements showed a significant correlation with CCT (537 ± 39 μm, range 458–656 μm). Multivariate regression analysis has shown that the difference between DCT and GAT is influenced significantly by ocular pulse amplitude (r = ? 0.334, p = 0.001) and it is not influenced by CCT (r = ? 0.106, p = 0.292). Conclusions: In eyes with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, DCT facilitates suitable and reliable IOP measurements which are in good concordance with GAT readings. Variation in CCT cannot by itself explain the differences in measurements taken with DCT and GAT in a number of eyes.