Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma.

Q3 Medicine
Pedro Henrique Alves Soares, Rafael de Oliveira Santos, Celso Ribeiro Angelo De Menezes Filho, Sebastião Pimenta Moraes Neto, João Antonio Prata Junior
{"title":"Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma.","authors":"Pedro Henrique Alves Soares,&nbsp;Rafael de Oliveira Santos,&nbsp;Celso Ribeiro Angelo De Menezes Filho,&nbsp;Sebastião Pimenta Moraes Neto,&nbsp;João Antonio Prata Junior","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Comparing intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using Goldmann applanation prism and TonoSafe® in the population without signs of glaucoma.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Patients with no ocular pathologies, except ametropia (until ± 4 D) or IOP of <30 mm Hg without signs of glaucoma by optic disc structural analysis by fundus biomicroscopy. The IOP was measured sequentially using the traditional cone and the TonoSafe®, according to a randomization list to determine which device would be used first. The measurements from the right and left eyes were compared separately. Since there was no statistical difference, both eyes were considered in this study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 385 eyes of 194 patients with a mean age of 66.4 ± 11.2 years old were included. The mean IOP with conventional prism was 14.2 ± 3.6 and 14.3 ± 3.6 mm Hg with TonoSafe<sup>®</sup>. Differences were not statistically significant by the Wilcoxon test (<i>p</i> = 0.3). The median was 14.0 mm Hg for both groups. The mean difference between measurements was 0.04 mm Hg, with the median equal to zero. There was no statistical difference in IOP readings according to which device was the first measurement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No statistical difference was found in IOP was measured with conventional prism or TonoSafe® in the population without signs of glaucoma.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The data provided by our study support the efficacy and safety of the disposable tonometer compared to the Goldman tonometer in measuring IOP in patients without glaucoma.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Soares PHA, Santos RDO, Filho CRADM, <i>et al.</i> Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2023;17(2):75-78.</p>","PeriodicalId":15419,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice","volume":"17 2","pages":"75-78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1e/64/jocgp-17-75.PMC10357021.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Comparing intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using Goldmann applanation prism and TonoSafe® in the population without signs of glaucoma.

Material and methods: Patients with no ocular pathologies, except ametropia (until ± 4 D) or IOP of <30 mm Hg without signs of glaucoma by optic disc structural analysis by fundus biomicroscopy. The IOP was measured sequentially using the traditional cone and the TonoSafe®, according to a randomization list to determine which device would be used first. The measurements from the right and left eyes were compared separately. Since there was no statistical difference, both eyes were considered in this study.

Results: A total of 385 eyes of 194 patients with a mean age of 66.4 ± 11.2 years old were included. The mean IOP with conventional prism was 14.2 ± 3.6 and 14.3 ± 3.6 mm Hg with TonoSafe®. Differences were not statistically significant by the Wilcoxon test (p = 0.3). The median was 14.0 mm Hg for both groups. The mean difference between measurements was 0.04 mm Hg, with the median equal to zero. There was no statistical difference in IOP readings according to which device was the first measurement.

Conclusion: No statistical difference was found in IOP was measured with conventional prism or TonoSafe® in the population without signs of glaucoma.

Clinical significance: The data provided by our study support the efficacy and safety of the disposable tonometer compared to the Goldman tonometer in measuring IOP in patients without glaucoma.

How to cite this article: Soares PHA, Santos RDO, Filho CRADM, et al. Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Values Obtained with Disposable Tip and Conventional Applanation Prism in the Population without Clinical Signs of Glaucoma. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2023;17(2):75-78.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Goldmann应用眼压计:在没有青光眼临床症状的人群中,使用一次性尖端和常规应用棱镜获得的眼压值的比较。
目的:比较使用Goldmann压平棱镜和TonoSafe®在没有青光眼迹象的人群中测量的眼压。材料和方法:除屈光不正(至±4D)或IOP外,无眼部疾病的患者。结果:194例患者中,共385眼,平均年龄66.4±11.2岁。传统棱镜的平均眼压为14.2±3.6毫米汞柱,而TonoSafe®的平均眼压则为14.3±3.6毫米Hg。通过Wilcoxon检验,差异无统计学意义(p=0.3)。两组的中位数均为14.0毫米汞柱。测量值之间的平均差值为0.04毫米汞柱,中位数等于零。根据哪种设备是第一次测量,IOP读数没有统计学差异。结论:在没有青光眼迹象的人群中,使用传统棱镜或TonoSafe®测量眼压没有统计学差异。临床意义:我们的研究提供的数据支持一次性眼压计与Goldman眼压计相比在测量无青光眼患者眼压方面的有效性和安全性。如何引用这篇文章:Soares PHA,Santos RDO,Filho CRADM,et al.Goldmann Applanation Tonometry:在没有青光眼临床症状的人群中,使用一次性尖端和常规Applanation棱镜获得的眼压值的比较。青光眼临床杂志2023;17(2):75-78。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice
Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice Medicine-Ophthalmology
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信