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。     

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.     

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。     

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。     

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。     

动态轮廓眼压计监测LASIK手术前后眼压变化

目的比较动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)、Goldmann压平式眼压计(GAT)及非接触式眼压计(NCT)测量接受准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(LASIK)患者眼压值的差异。设计前瞻性临床试验研究。研究对象接受LASIK治疗的近视患者70例(140眼)。方法对上述患者于术前、术后1周,1、6个月用三种不同眼压计分别测量眼压,比较各时间点、各种眼压计之间的差异。同时记录手术前、后中央角膜厚度,取其两者差为角膜切削深度的值。主要指标眼压值(IOP)和角膜切削深度。结果术后1周,1、6个月DCT测量值(16.74±1.96mmHg、16.67±1.90mmHg、16.42±2.12mmHg)与其术前值(17.36±2.32mmHg)比较差异无统计学意义(F=1.346,P=0.06)。术后GAT和NCT测量值均呈下降趋势,与术前测量值比较差异有统计学意义(GAT:F=101.217,P=0.000;NCT:F=171.466,P=0.000),并且下降值与角膜切削深度成正相关关系(GAT:r=0.86,P=0.000;NCT:r=0.87,P=0.000),但术后三个时间段测量值比较差异无统计学意义(GAT术后三个时间点q值为0.216、0.677、0.461,P值分别为0.461、0.097、0.117;NCT术后三个时间点q值为0.215、0.585、0.370,P值分别为0.436、0.436、0.100)。结论LASIK术后GAT和NCT测量值明显下降,而DCT测量值无显著变化,其测量值较前两者更为可靠。(眼科,2007,16:344-347)     

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。     

Pascal动态轮廓眼压计在角膜屈光手术前后的应用

目的 探讨Pascal动态轮廓眼压计(dynamic contour tonometer,DCT)在角膜屈光手术前后的应用.方法 随机收集我院2009年1月至6月拟接受角膜屈光手术的屈光不正患者127例(254眼),其中男51例(102眼),女76例(152眼);年龄18～47岁,平均(22.48±3.57)岁.中央角膜厚度(central corneal thickness,CCT)为450～600 μm,平均等效球镜度数为-0.75～10.00 D.术前及术后1个月分别采用DCT和非接触式眼压计(non-contact tonometer,NCT)测量眼压,角膜超声测厚仪测量CCT,并分析眼压与CCT变化的关系.结果 术前:450 μmm550 μm时,NCT测得眼压平均值分别为(11.51±3.25)mmHg(1kPa=7.5 mmHg)、(17.58±2.97)彻Hg、(19.74±3.12)nHg,DCT测得眼压平均值分别为(16.89±2.56)mmHg、(17.33±3.32)mmHg、(17.58±2.74)mmHg,当450 μm550 μm时,DCT与NCT测得的眼压平均值比较,差异均有统计学意义(均为PO.05);术后1个月:当△CCT≤50 μm、50μm<△ccT≤100μm和△cCT>looμm时,NCT测得眼压较术前分别下降(1.46±0.81)mmHg、(3.87±1.21)mmHg、(4.19±2.68)mmHg,与术前相比差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05、P0.05).结论 DCT受角膜厚度影响较小,是角膜屈光手术前后眼压测量的一种好方法,尤其对于手术前眼压偏高的患者意义更大.     

Diaton眼压计测量准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术后眼压

目的:通过与非接触式眼压计(non-contact tonometer,NCT)的比较,评价Diaton眼压计(DT)在准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(laser in situkeratomileusis,LASIK)前后眼压测量中的应用价值。方法:在LASIK术前及术后1mo,分别使用NCT和DT测量患者眼压,使用SPSS13.0统计软件对所得结果进行统计学分析。结果:术后1mo时,NCT眼压测量值较术前下降(5.76±2.31)mmHg,DT眼压测量值则无显著差异(t=0.70,P=0.487);NCT与DT读数测量值差值与术中切削量呈正相关,与术后中央角膜厚度呈负相关。结论:Diaton测量眼压不受角膜厚度的影响,因此更适用于LASIK术后患者的眼压测量。     

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。     

The influence of soft contact lenses on the intraocular pressure measurement

Purpose

To evaluate the influence of silicone hydrogel contact lenses on the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), non-contact tonometry (NCT), and Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT).

Methods

We included in the study 40 eyes of 40 patients who did not have any ocular or systemic diseases or contraindications to contact lens use. We measured and recorded the IOP values of each patient using NCT without and with contact lenses (groups 1 and 2, respectively), using DCT without and with contact lenses (groups 3 and 4, respectively), and using GAT without contact lenses (group 5).

Results

The mean IOP value of group 1 was 14.55±2.95 mm Hg and 13.92±2.58 mm Hg in group 2. We detected no statistically significant difference between group 1 and group 2 (P=0.053). The mean IOP values for group 3 and group 4 were 16.26±2.33 mm Hg and 15.19±2.40 mm Hg, respectively. We detected a statistically significant difference between groups 3 and 4 (P=0.005). Group 5''s mean IOP value was 12.97±2.65 mm Hg. IOP values measured with DCT were statistically significantly higher compared with IOP values measured with NCT and GAT (P<0.0001 and P<0.0001, respectively). Additionally, IOP values measured with NCT were statistically significantly higher compared with IOP values measured with GAT (P<0.0001).

Conclusion

According to the results of our study, silicone hydrogel soft contact lens use does not significantly affect IOP values measured with NCT, but it affects IOP values measured with DCT.     

Comparison of ICare and IOPen vs Goldmann applanation tonometry according to international standards 8612 in glaucoma patients

AIM: To compare IOPen and ICare rebound tonometry to Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) according to International Standards Organization (ISO) 8612 criteria. METHODS: Totally 191 eyes (n=107 individuals) were included. Criteria of ISO 8612 were fulfilled: 3 clusters of IOP, measured by GAT, were formed. The GAT results were given as mean±standard deviation. RESULTS: GAT (19.7±0.5 mm Hg) showed a significant correlation to ICare (19.8±0.5 mm Hg) (r=0.547, P<0.001) and IOPen (19.5±0.5 mm Hg) (r=0.526, P<0.001). According to ISO 8612 criteria in all 3 IOP groups the number of outliers (of the 95% limits of agreement) exceeded 5% for ICare and IOPen vs GAT: No.1 (n=68) 29.4% and 22.1%, No.2 (n=62) 35.5% and 37.1%, No.3 (n=61) 26.2% and 42.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The strict requirements of the ISO 8612 are not fulfilled in a glaucoma collective by ICare and IOPen at present. As long as the Goldmann tonometry is applicable it should be used first of all for reproducible IOP readings. ICare and IOPen tonometry should be considered as an alternative tool, if application of Goldmann tonometry is not possible.     

Characterization of the thickness of different corneal zones in glaucoma: effect on dynamic contour,Goldmann and rebound tonometries

Purpose: To characterize five models of corneal thickness circular zoning in a sample of healthy controls and a sample of patients with primary open‐angle glaucoma (POAG) and to determine their effect on Goldmann (GAT), dynamic contour (DCT) and rebound tonometers (RT). Methods: The study participants were 122 controls and 129 cases. Five corneal thickness zoning models (A, B, C, D and E) were constructed. The partitioning pattern consisted of a circle centred at the corneal apex and several concentric rings, until the limbus; the contours of each ring followed the geometry of the corneal contour of each participant. In Model A, the central circle was 1 mm in diameter and five concentric rings were established. Mean was obtained for each zone for both samples and compared between them using a t‐test. The effect on the tonometers of central cornel thickness (CCT) and mean thickness of the zones generated was determined through several linear regression models (one per tonometer and per sample). Results: According to a t‐test, cases and controls differ in zones I [mean difference (MD): 17.93 μm], V (MD: 25.52 μm) and VI (MD: 31.78 μm) of model A (higher values in the cases sample). RT was affected by CCT (controls: B = 0.089; cases: B = 0.081). DCT was affected by zone IV of model A (controls: B = ?0.029; cases: B = ?0.012). GAT was affected by CCT (controls: B = 0.043; cases: B = 0.025) and zone III of model A (controls: B = ?0.045; cases: B = ?0.033). Conclusion: Our results highlight the importance of the thickness of other regions of the cornea different from its main centre in discriminating between healthy controls and patients with POAG and in IOP measurements made using DCT, GAT and RT.     

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.     

Effects of topical anaesthetics and repeated tonometry on intraocular pressure

Purpose: To investigate the effects of repeated measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and applanation resonance tonometry (ART) to identify mechanisms contributing to the expected IOP reduction. Methods: A prospective, single‐centre study with six healthy volunteers. Consecutive repeated series (six measurements/serie/method) were made alternately on both eyes for 1 hr with oxybuprocaine/fluorescein in the right eye and tetracaine in the left. The left eye was Pentacam^® photographed before and repeatedly for 20 min after the IOP measurements. On a separate occasion, the same volunteers received the same amount of anaesthetic drops for 1 hr but without repeated IOP measurements. Results: A significant IOP reduction occurred with both ART and GAT in the oxybuprocaine‐treated eye, ?4.4 mmHg and ?3.8 mmHg, respectively and with ART in the tetracaine eye, ?2.1 mmHg. There was a significant difference in IOP reduction between the oxybuprocaine and tetracaine eyes with ART. There was a significant drop in anterior chamber volume (ACV) immediately after the IOP measurements, ?12.6 μl that returned to pretrial level after 2 min. After 1 hr of receiving anaesthetic eye drops (without IOP measurements), the IOP decreased significantly in the oxybuprocaine eye for both ART and GAT, ?3.1 and ?1.7 mmHg, respectively, but not in the tetracaine eye (p = 0.72). Conclusion: The IOP reduction cannot be explained solely by aqueous humor being pressed out of the anterior chamber. While significant IOP reduction occurred with both tetracaine and oxybuprocaine after repeated mechanical applanation, the IOP reduction was significantly greater with oxybuprocaine.     

Clinical performance of the Reichert AT550: a new non-contact tonometer

The aim of the present study was to assess the level of accuracy for measurements of intra-ocular pressure (IOP) obtained with a new non-contact tonometer (NCT) the Reichert AT550. Measurements were compared against those obtained with the Reichert Xpert Plus, Goldmann applanation tonometer and Perkins tonometer. Thirty-five university students were assessed with the four tonometers in a randomised order, with non-contact tonometry performed first. Each of the four measurement devices had its own trained clinical observer. Plots of differences of IOP as a function of the mean for each pair of instruments were obtained. No statistically significant differences were found when comparing the AT550 NCT with contact applanation tonometry (AT) (p> 0.05), displaying the closest level of agreement (as represented by the lowest mean difference and the narrowest confidence interval) with the Goldmann tonometer (limits of agreement, 0.12+/-2.17). In conclusion, readings of IOP with the AT550 NCT are clinically comparable with those obtained with Goldmann tonometry in a population with IOP within the normal range.     

Effect of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurements with the Pascal dynamic contour,Canon TX‐10 non‐contact and Goldmann applanation tonometers in healthy subjects

Purpose: To investigate the effects of central corneal thickness (CCT) on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), Canon TX‐10 non‐contact tonometry (NCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry measurements (GAT) in healthy subjects. Methods: IOP values of 135 eyes with normal corneas of 135 healthy volunteers were determined by DCT, NCT and by GAT. The CCT was measured using an ultrasonic pachymeter after all IOP determinations had been made. Results: When DCT measurements were compared (IOP = 17.52 ± 2.0 mmHg) with NCT measurements (IOP = 16.54 ± 2.77 mmHg) and GAT measurements (IOP = 15.07 ± 2.35 mmHg), DCT measurements were significantly higher than NCT and GAT (p < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between CCT with both NCT (r = 0.260, p = 0.003) and GAT measurements (r = 0.257, p = 0.005). There was a weak correlation that was not statistically significant between CCT and DCT (r = 0.160, p = 0.079). Conclusion: The IOP measurements with DCT seem to be less dependent on CCT. NCT appears to be more affected by variation in CCT than GAT.     

不同角膜厚度下动态轮廓眼压计和Goldmann压平眼压计在不同角膜厚度的测量值比较

目的比较动态轮廓眼压计（dynamic contour to-nometry,DCT）和Goldmann压平眼压计（Goldmann applanation tonometry,GAT）在中央角膜厚度（central corneal thickness,CCT）不同的正常眼测量值的差异。方法患者69例（69眼）按CCT不同分为正常组（520～580μm）42眼、变薄组（450～520μm）16眼、增厚组（580～640μm）11眼。各组分别用DCT和GAT测量眼压。结果正常组平均CCT为（574.55±16.40）μm,平均GAT值为（16.62±3.15）mmHg（1kPa=7.5mmHg）,平均DCT值为（16.78±2.86）mmHg,DCT与GAP差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,平均GAT-DCT值为（-0.16±0.96）mmHg;变薄组平均CCT为（499.44±16.70）μm,平均GAT值为（14.03±2.72）mmHg,平均DCT值为（17.06±2.72）mmHg,2者差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）,平均GAT-DCT值为（-3.03±1.32）mmHg;增厚组平均CCT为（605.18±17.90）μm,平均GAT值为（16.91±3.94）mmHg,平均DCT值为（16.80±4.25）mmHg,2者差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,平均GAT-DCT值为（0.05±2.47）mmHg。结论在角膜厚度正常眼,DCT值和GAT值较一致;在角膜厚度变薄眼,前者较后者准确;在角膜厚度变厚眼未体现DCT的优越性。     

Deviations between transpalpebral tonometry using TGDc-01 and Goldmann applanation tonometry depending on the IOP level

Background Recent comparisons between transpalpebral tonometry using TGDc-01 and Goldmann applanation tonometry were performed in populations with IOPs between 10 and 20 mmHg. The purpose of this study was to evaluate device deviations depending on different IOP levels (range 5–40 mmHg).Methods A total of 68 eyes of 68 patients were included and assigned to four IOP levels according to an initial applanation tonometry assessment: level I, <10 mmHg (n=8); level II, 10–19 mmHg (n=20); level III, 20–29 mmHg (n=20); and level IV, 30 mmHg (n=20). Two independent and randomized observers performed three replicate measurements per eye—observer 1 using TGDc-01 tonometry, and observer 2 using Goldmann applanation tonometry. Intraindividual deviations between measurement results were investigated concerning clinical relevance by medians and quartiles, concerning statistical significance by pairwise sign tests; p values <0.05 indicate local statistical significance.Results In patients with initial IOP 20 mmHg, TGDc-01–based tonometry significantly underestimated the IOP as based on Goldmann applanation tonometry (p<0.001). This effect increased with increasing IOP: IOP level III median difference (TGDc-01 – Goldmann) –1.3 mmHg (interquartile range, –2.5, –0.4), IOP level IV median difference –2.7 mmHg (–3.7, –1.0). In patients with initial IOP <10 mmHg, an at least gradual underestimation by TGDc-01 tonometry (p=0.219; median difference, –0.6, –1.6, 0) was observed. A total 18% of patients showed device deviations >±3 mmHg, and even 35% of those patients with initial IOP 30 mmHg.Conclusions TGDc-01–based tonometry demonstrated an increasing underestimation of IOP with increasing IOP levels when compared with the current standard method of Goldmann applanation tonometry.     

Bacterial flora of conjunctiva after death

AIM:To compare the accuracy of IOPen rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in individuals with low, normal and high intraocular pressure (IOP) and to evaluate the effect of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements.METHODS:This cross-sectional study consisted of 159 participants. IOP of one eye of each subject was measured consecutively with IOPen and GAT. Then CCT was measured using an ultrasonic pachymeter. Based on GAT IOP readings, participants were divided into low, normal and high IOP groups. Correlation between tonometers and CCT was calculated by spearman’s correlation coefficient. Agreement between tonometers was evaluated using Bland-Altman method.RESULTS: Non-significant underestimation of IOP by IOPen was observed in low IOP group (Mean difference:0.20mmHg; P=0.454) and also in normal IOP group (Mean difference:0.56mmHg; P=0.065). However, IOPen significantly overestimated IOP in high IOP group (Mean difference:1.06mmHg; P=0.038). The 95% limits of agreement (LoA) width between IOPen and GAT IOPs were 7.84, 8.57 and 14.27mmHg in low, normal and high IOP groups, respectively. Low IOP group had thinner corneas compared to high IOP group (P=0.034). IOP measurements taken by IOPen were not influenced by CCT (P=0.099) while poor correlation between CCT and GAT was found (R=0.17, P=0.032). Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, cutoff value of 18.75mmHg was determined for IOPen with sensitivity of 98.1 and specificity of 97.2%.CONCLUSION:Accuracy of IOPen is comparable to GAT in patients with low or normal IOP but IOPen overestimates IOP at high IOP levels. CCT does not affect IOP readings with IOPen.