{"title":"角膜晶状体眼角膜环植入术对不同眼压计测量眼压的影响。","authors":"Christiano Scholte, Júlia Maggi Vieira, Leonardo Torquetti, Fábio Nishimura Kanadani","doi":"10.5935/0004-2749.2024-0217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the influence of intrastromal corneal ring segment implants on the intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry, and noncontact tonometry in keratoconic corneas and analyze the intertonometer agreement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 74 eyes in this observational and prospective study. Each participant had a complete eye examination, corneal analysis with Scheimpflug Tomography (Pentacam®), and intraocular pressure evaluation with Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry, and noncontact tonometry, before and after intrastromal corneal ring segment implantation (on postoperative days 1, 7, 45, and 90). Intertonometer agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age was 29.9 ± 10.2 years, and 47 (63.5%) eyes had keratoconus grade II. Intraocular pressures were higher for noncontact tonometry preoperatively and on 90 postoperative day (mean ± SD: 12.4 ± 2.2 and 12.1 ± 2.2 mmHg, respectively), followed by Goldmann applanation tonometry (11.1 ± 3.0 and 11.2 ± 2.7 mmHg, respectively), and were lower for rebound tonometry (9.7 ± 3.4 and 9.4 ± 3.2 mmHg, respectively). The variation from the Goldmann tonometry on 7 postoperative day to the baseline (p=0.022) and that of noncontact tonometry on 90 postoperative day to the baseline (p=0.021) were statistically significant. The rebound tonometry underestimated intraocular pressure when compared with the Goldmann applanation tonometry by a mean of 1.47 ± 5.19 mmHg. Noncontact tonometry, when compared with Goldmann applanation tonometry, overestimated intraocular pressure by a mean of 1.23 ± 4.15 mmHg.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite statistically significant differences between some postoperative periods, the intraocular pressure measurement differences may not be clinically relevant.</p>","PeriodicalId":8397,"journal":{"name":"Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia","volume":"88 5","pages":"e20240217"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influence of intrastromal corneal ring implantation on intraocular pressure measurements using different tonometers in keratoconic eyes.\",\"authors\":\"Christiano Scholte, Júlia Maggi Vieira, Leonardo Torquetti, Fábio Nishimura Kanadani\",\"doi\":\"10.5935/0004-2749.2024-0217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the influence of intrastromal corneal ring segment implants on the intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry, and noncontact tonometry in keratoconic corneas and analyze the intertonometer agreement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 74 eyes in this observational and prospective study. Each participant had a complete eye examination, corneal analysis with Scheimpflug Tomography (Pentacam®), and intraocular pressure evaluation with Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry, and noncontact tonometry, before and after intrastromal corneal ring segment implantation (on postoperative days 1, 7, 45, and 90). Intertonometer agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age was 29.9 ± 10.2 years, and 47 (63.5%) eyes had keratoconus grade II. Intraocular pressures were higher for noncontact tonometry preoperatively and on 90 postoperative day (mean ± SD: 12.4 ± 2.2 and 12.1 ± 2.2 mmHg, respectively), followed by Goldmann applanation tonometry (11.1 ± 3.0 and 11.2 ± 2.7 mmHg, respectively), and were lower for rebound tonometry (9.7 ± 3.4 and 9.4 ± 3.2 mmHg, respectively). The variation from the Goldmann tonometry on 7 postoperative day to the baseline (p=0.022) and that of noncontact tonometry on 90 postoperative day to the baseline (p=0.021) were statistically significant. The rebound tonometry underestimated intraocular pressure when compared with the Goldmann applanation tonometry by a mean of 1.47 ± 5.19 mmHg. Noncontact tonometry, when compared with Goldmann applanation tonometry, overestimated intraocular pressure by a mean of 1.23 ± 4.15 mmHg.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite statistically significant differences between some postoperative periods, the intraocular pressure measurement differences may not be clinically relevant.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia\",\"volume\":\"88 5\",\"pages\":\"e20240217\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-21\",\"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/10.5935/0004-2749.2024-0217\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.2024-0217","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Influence of intrastromal corneal ring implantation on intraocular pressure measurements using different tonometers in keratoconic eyes.
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of intrastromal corneal ring segment implants on the intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry, and noncontact tonometry in keratoconic corneas and analyze the intertonometer agreement.
Methods: We enrolled 74 eyes in this observational and prospective study. Each participant had a complete eye examination, corneal analysis with Scheimpflug Tomography (Pentacam®), and intraocular pressure evaluation with Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry, and noncontact tonometry, before and after intrastromal corneal ring segment implantation (on postoperative days 1, 7, 45, and 90). Intertonometer agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis.
Results: The mean age was 29.9 ± 10.2 years, and 47 (63.5%) eyes had keratoconus grade II. Intraocular pressures were higher for noncontact tonometry preoperatively and on 90 postoperative day (mean ± SD: 12.4 ± 2.2 and 12.1 ± 2.2 mmHg, respectively), followed by Goldmann applanation tonometry (11.1 ± 3.0 and 11.2 ± 2.7 mmHg, respectively), and were lower for rebound tonometry (9.7 ± 3.4 and 9.4 ± 3.2 mmHg, respectively). The variation from the Goldmann tonometry on 7 postoperative day to the baseline (p=0.022) and that of noncontact tonometry on 90 postoperative day to the baseline (p=0.021) were statistically significant. The rebound tonometry underestimated intraocular pressure when compared with the Goldmann applanation tonometry by a mean of 1.47 ± 5.19 mmHg. Noncontact tonometry, when compared with Goldmann applanation tonometry, overestimated intraocular pressure by a mean of 1.23 ± 4.15 mmHg.
Conclusion: Despite statistically significant differences between some postoperative periods, the intraocular pressure measurement differences may not be clinically relevant.
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.