|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|2692907||1143483||2016||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
• Intraocular pressure (IOP) evaluation is influenced by several morphological and biomechanical eye properties.
• A precise IOP value is important in healthy subjects (HS) and in patients with keratoconus (KC) and that underwent myopic refractive surgery (REF).
• IOP of HS, KC and REF has been evaluated by these tonomter: Goldmann (GAT), dynamic contour (DCT), ocular response analyzer (ORA) and Corvis (CST).
• Results obtained by every devices has been statistically analyzed.
• ORA and GAT provide similar results in HS; GAT provides lowest IOP values compared to the other devices in REF eyes.
PurposeTo analyze and compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured in healthy subjects (HS), keratoconus (KC) patients and patients that underwent myopic photorefractive keratectomy (REF), using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), ocular response analyzer (ORA) and Corvis ST (CST).MethodsThe study included 76 eyes of 76HS, 15 eyes of 15 KC patients and 18 eyes of 18 subjects that underwent REF. Each participant underwent a complete ophthalmic evaluation, IOP measurement with GAT, DCT, ORA and CST.ResultsHS showed a mean GAT value of 15.62 ± 2.33 mm Hg, a mean DCT value of 17.44 ± 2.51 mm Hg, a mean ORA value of 15.99 ± 3.58 mm Hg and a mean CST value of 17.24 ± 3.44 mm Hg. KC showed a mean GAT value of 15.07 ± 1.83 mm Hg, a mean DCT value of 17.01 ± 1.96 mm Hg, a mean ORA value of 13.58 ± 2.99 mm Hg and a mean CST value of 14.37 ± 1.89 mm Hg. REF showed a mean GAT value of 14.06 ± 1.51 mm Hg, a mean DCT value of 15.12 ± 2.34 mm Hg, a mean ORA value of 16.85 ± 2.4 mm Hg and a mean CST value of 15.57 ± 1.77 mm Hg.ConclusionOur data suggest that ORA and GAT could be used interchangeably in HS; GAT, ORA and CST could be used interchangeably in KC patients and that GAT provides lower IOP values compared to the other devices in eyes previously submitted to myopic PRK.
Journal: Contact Lens and Anterior Eye - Volume 39, Issue 2, April 2016, Pages 154–159