Comparison between objective and subjective postoperative intraocular pressure immediately after cataract surgery.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia Pub Date : 2024-11-22 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5935/0004-2749.2023-0174
Julia F Heringer, Gustavo Rosa Gameiro, Maria Fernanda Abalem, Pedro C Carricondo
{"title":"Comparison between objective and subjective postoperative intraocular pressure immediately after cataract surgery.","authors":"Julia F Heringer, Gustavo Rosa Gameiro, Maria Fernanda Abalem, Pedro C Carricondo","doi":"10.5935/0004-2749.2023-0174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare objective and subjective intraocular pressure measurements immediately after cataract surgery and intraocular pressure measurements between less experienced surgeons (Group 1) and experienced surgeons (Group 2).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Surgeons were asked to estimate the IOP after corneal sealing after surgery based on their tactile perception of eye tension (subjective intraocular pressure) Objective intraocular pressure was measured using a Perkins tonometer while patients were still in the surgical field. Objective intraocular pressure was compared to subjective intraocular pressure. Results from less experienced surgeons were compared to more experienced surgeons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study comprised 81 surgeries (81 eyes) performed by 27 surgeons. The mean objective intraocular pressure (9.14 mmHg; SD=5.86) was statistically significantly lower (p<0.001) than the mean subjective intraocular pressure (19.21 mmHg; SD=4.82). Hypotony (intraocular pressure <6mmHg) was observed in 25 eyes (30.86%). The mean subjective intraocular pressure was 18.8 mmHg (SD=5.19) for less experienced surgeons and 19.5 mmHg (SD=4.46) for more experienced, without statistically significant difference (p=0.541). No statistically significant difference (p=0.71) was observed when comparing objective intraocular pressure in Group 1 (10.32 mmHg; SD=6.65) and Group 2 (7.97 mmHg; SD=4.7).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Objective intraocular pressure was significantly lower than subjective intraocular pressure, regardless of surgeons' experience. This study showed that the subjective method is unreliable compared to the gold standard (Perkins tonometer) and does not improve with surgeons' experience. Establishing standard training methods is paramount to developing surgeons' skills.</p>","PeriodicalId":8397,"journal":{"name":"Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia","volume":"88 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.2023-0174","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare objective and subjective intraocular pressure measurements immediately after cataract surgery and intraocular pressure measurements between less experienced surgeons (Group 1) and experienced surgeons (Group 2).

Methods: Surgeons were asked to estimate the IOP after corneal sealing after surgery based on their tactile perception of eye tension (subjective intraocular pressure) Objective intraocular pressure was measured using a Perkins tonometer while patients were still in the surgical field. Objective intraocular pressure was compared to subjective intraocular pressure. Results from less experienced surgeons were compared to more experienced surgeons.

Results: The study comprised 81 surgeries (81 eyes) performed by 27 surgeons. The mean objective intraocular pressure (9.14 mmHg; SD=5.86) was statistically significantly lower (p<0.001) than the mean subjective intraocular pressure (19.21 mmHg; SD=4.82). Hypotony (intraocular pressure <6mmHg) was observed in 25 eyes (30.86%). The mean subjective intraocular pressure was 18.8 mmHg (SD=5.19) for less experienced surgeons and 19.5 mmHg (SD=4.46) for more experienced, without statistically significant difference (p=0.541). No statistically significant difference (p=0.71) was observed when comparing objective intraocular pressure in Group 1 (10.32 mmHg; SD=6.65) and Group 2 (7.97 mmHg; SD=4.7).

Conclusion: Objective intraocular pressure was significantly lower than subjective intraocular pressure, regardless of surgeons' experience. This study showed that the subjective method is unreliable compared to the gold standard (Perkins tonometer) and does not improve with surgeons' experience. Establishing standard training methods is paramount to developing surgeons' skills.

白内障手术后眼压的客观和主观比较。
目的:比较白内障手术后立即进行的客观和主观眼压测量结果,以及经验较少的外科医生(第 1 组)和经验丰富的外科医生(第 2 组)之间的眼压测量结果:要求外科医生根据他们对眼球张力的触觉(主观眼压)来估计手术后角膜封闭后的眼压。客观眼压是在患者仍在手术区时使用帕金斯眼压计测量的。将客观眼压与主观眼压进行比较。将经验不足的外科医生与经验丰富的外科医生的结果进行比较:研究包括由 27 名外科医生进行的 81 例手术(81 只眼)。客观眼压的平均值(9.14 mmHg; SD=5.86)在统计学上显著较低(p 结论:客观眼压显著低于主观眼压:无论外科医生的经验如何,客观眼压都明显低于主观眼压。这项研究表明,与金标准(帕金斯眼压计)相比,主观法并不可靠,而且不会随着外科医生经验的增加而改善。建立标准的培训方法对于培养外科医生的技能至关重要。
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
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
200
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The ABO-ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE OFTALMOLOGIA (ABO, ISSN 0004-2749 - print and ISSN 1678-2925 - (ABO, ISSN 0004-2749 - print and ISSN 1678-2925 - electronic version), the official bimonthly publication of the Brazilian Council of Ophthalmology (CBO), aims to disseminate scientific studies in Ophthalmology, Visual Science and Health public, by promoting research, improvement and updating of professionals related to the field.
×
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