Top

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Published in:

01-01-2010 | Glaucoma

Intraocular pressure measured by dynamic contour tonometer and ocular response analyzer in normal tension glaucoma

Authors: Tetsuya Morita, Nobuyuki Shoji, Kazutaka Kamiya, Mana Hagishima, Fusako Fujimura, Kimiya Shimizu

Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 1/2010

Abstract

Background

To investigate intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement values in normal tension glaucoma (NTG) eyes using two different types of tonometer that are supposed to be little affected by corneal biochemical properties.

Methods

This study included 30 normal eyes of 16 healthy subjects and 30 eyes of 16 patients with NTG. IOP was measured with a Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), a Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and a Reichert ocular response analyzer (ORA) three times each for normal and NTG eyes. The main measures were GAT-IOP, DCT-IOP, corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc), Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg), and central corneal thickness (CCT).

Results

In normal eyes, GAT-IOP was 13.2 ± 1.4 mmHg; DCT-IOP, 13.0 ± 1.6 mmHg; IOPcc, 13.6 ± 2.0 mmHg; and IOPg, 12.4 ± 2.0 mmHg. Multivariate analysis revealed no significant differences between the four measurements (p = 0.08). CCT was 524.6 ± 27.3 microns. In NTG eyes, GAT-IOP was 13.1 ± 1.3 mmHg; DCT-IOP, 13.7 ± 1.3 mmHg; IOPcc, 15.2 ± 2.0 mmHg; and IOPg, 12.7 ± 2.0 mmHg. Multivariate analysis showed significant differences between the four measurements (p < 0.01). Sheffé’s test showed that IOPcc was significantly higher than GAT-IOP, DCT-IOP, and IOPg (GAT-IOP vs IOPcc: p < 0.0001; DCT-IOP vs IOPcc: p = 0.01; IOPcc vs IOPg: p < 0.0001). CCT was 515.4 ± 32.9 microns, with no significant difference between normal and NTG eyes (p = 0.15).

Conclusions

We investigated the values of IOP in NTG eyes as measured by the DCT and ORA. IOPcc was significantly greater than GAT-IOP, DCT-IOP and IOPg in NTG eyes, suggesting the possibility that IOP values may be underestimated.

Leskea MC, Heijl A, Hyman L et al (2004) Factors for progression and glaucoma treatment: the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 15:102–106CrossRefPubMed

Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group (1998) Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Am J Ophthalmol 126:487–497CrossRef

Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S (1975) Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol 53:34–43

Wolfs RC, Klaver CC, Vingerling JR et al (1997) Distribution of central corneal thickness and its association with intraocular pressure: The Rotterdam Study. Am J Ophthalmol 123:767–772PubMed

Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J et al (2005) Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relation to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol 123:1532–1537CrossRefPubMed

Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA (2004) Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:3118–3121CrossRefPubMed

Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN (2006) Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma 15:364–370CrossRefPubMed

Luce DA (2005) Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:156–162CrossRefPubMed

Copt RP, Thomas R, Mermoud A (1999) Corneal thickness in ocular hypertension, primary open-angle glaucoma, and normal tension glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 117:14–16PubMed

10.

Morad Y, Sharon E, Hefetz L et al (1998) Corneal thickness and curvature in normal-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 126:326–328CrossRef

11.

Punjabi OS, Ho HK, Kniestedt C et al (2006) Intraocular pressure and ocular pulse amplitude comparisons in different types of glaucoma using dynamic contour tonometry. Curr Eye Res 31:851–862CrossRefPubMed

12.

Wu LL, Suzuki Y, Ideta R et al (2000) Central corneal thickness of normal tension glaucoma patients in Japan. Jpn J Ophthalmol 44:643–647CrossRefPubMed

13.

Iwase A, Suzuki Y, Araie M et al (2004) The prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma in Japanese: the Tajimi Study. Ophthalmology 111:1641–1648PubMed

14.

Suzuki S, Suzuki Y, Iwase A et al (2005) Corneal thickness in an ophthalmologically normal Japanese population. Ophthalmology 112:1327–1336CrossRefPubMed

15.

Kynigopoulos M, Schlote T, Kotecha A et al (2008) Repeatability of intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanical properties measurements by the ocular response analyser. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 225:357–360CrossRefPubMed

16.

Moreno-Montañés J, Maldonado MJ, García N et al (2008) Reproducibility and clinical relevance of the ocular response analyzer in nonoperated eyes: corneal biomechanical and tonometric implications. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:968–974CrossRefPubMed

17.

Schneider E, Grehn F (2006) Intraocular pressure measurement—comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma 15:471–474CrossRef

18.

Hager A, Loge K, Schroeder B et al (2008) Effect of central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis on tonometry as measured by dynamic contour tonometry, ocular response analyzer, and Goldmann tonometry in glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma 17:361–365CrossRefPubMed

19.

Doyle A, Lachkar Y (2005) Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry over a wide range of central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma 14:288–292CrossRefPubMed

20.

Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Mantry S et al (2008) Ocular response analyser to assess hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in low tension, open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 36:508–513CrossRefPubMed

21.

Sullivan-Mee M, Billingsley SC, Patel AD et al (2008) Ocular Response Analyzer in subjects with and without glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci 85:463–470CrossRefPubMed

Title: Intraocular pressure measured by dynamic contour tonometer and ocular response analyzer in normal tension glaucoma
Authors: Tetsuya Morita
Nobuyuki Shoji
Kazutaka Kamiya
Mana Hagishima
Fusako Fujimura
Kimiya Shimizu
Publication date: 01-01-2010
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Issue 1/2010
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-009-1169-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Intraocular pressure measured by dynamic contour tonometer and ocular response analyzer in normal tension glaucoma

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

Hypothesis on the pathogenesis of retinopathy of prematurity—it is not VEGF alone but anatomical structures that are crucial

The fluid mechanics of scleral buckling surgery for the repair of retinal detachment

Intra-individual comparison after combined phaco-trabecular aspiration in pairs of pseudoexfoliative eyes

Interferon α for the treatment of melanocytic conjunctival lesions

The NEI VFQ-25 vision-related quality of life and prevalence of eye disease in a working population

A comparative clinical study of the visual results between three types of multifocal lenses