Tonometry after Intrastromal Corneal Ring Segments for Keratoconus

Corneal Biomechanics in Non-infectious Uveitis Measured by Corvis ST: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To assess differences between corneal biomechanical properties in patients with non-infectious uveitis and healthy subjects using CorVis.

METHODS

77 patients with non-infectious uveitis and 47 control subjects were recruited. Biomechanical parameters were measured: deformation amplitude (DA), A-1 length and A-2 length (L1, L2), A-1 velocity and A-2 velocity (V1, V2), peak distance (PD) and HC radius (highest concavity radius). AUC ROC and correlation between clinical variables and biomechanical properties were determined.

RESULTS

Lower HC Radius and IOPb and higher DA and V1 was found in uveitis group. Statistical differences between cases using systemic medications and those with topical treatment were found in L1. Differences were showed between those cases with active and inactive uveitis in PD, DA, V2 and L2. The biomechanical parameter with the best discriminatory capacity of uveitis disease was HC Radius.

CONCLUSION

Differences in corneal biomechanical properties between non-infectious uveitis and healthy eyes were found.

Twenty-four hours intraocular pressure in keratoconic eyes assessed by applanation tonometry and Tono-Pen AVIA

AIM

To assess intraocular pressure (IOP) during the daily curve of intraocular pressure (DCPo) in keratoconic eyes and compare Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), without and with astigmatism correction (nGAT and cGAT) and Tono-Pen AVIA (TPA) assessment methods.

METHODS

Thirty-nine keratoconic eyes of 24 patients were assessed. DCPo was evaluated with five IOP measurements; four were performed with a GAT (nGAT and cGAT), and a Tono-Pen AVIA (TPA) at various times throughout the day.

RESULTS

Mean IOP DCPo values (mm Hg) were: nGAT, 9.9±2.6; cGAT, 11.3±2.6; TPA 12.3±3.1. Mean IOP DCPo differences (mm Hg) and Spearman's correlation coefficients were as follows: cGATc-nGAT, 1.32±1.31, r _s=0.879 (P<0.01); cGAT-TPA, -1.02±2.08, r _s=0.723 (P<0.01); and nGAT-TPA, -2.35±2.23, r _s=0.730 (P<0.01). Bland-Altman analysis for agreement between cGAT-TPA and nGAT-TPA mean IOP DCPo measurements revealed a mean difference of 1.02 (95%CI, 0.35-1.70) and 2.35 (95%CI, 1.62-3.07) mm Hg, respectively. Regression analysis yielded the following equation: TPA IOP=5.49+0.775×cGAT-0.015×ACD-0.299×corneal astig matism, which allowed us to infer TPA IOP values from other parameters.

CONCLUSION

In keratoconic eyes, IOP peaks of DCPo measurements are identified at 6 a.m., independent of the tonometer. The mean DCPo values are: TPA>cGAT>nGAT. IOP TPA measures are predictive of cGAT values, adjusted according to anterior chamber depth and corneal astigmatism.

Comparison between different tonometers following intrastromal corneal ring segments implantation

PURPOSE

To compare different intraocular pressure (IOP) readings in corneas with intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) taken by three different tonometers; Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), air puff tonometer, and ocular response analyzer (ORA) corneal-compensated IOP (ORA-IOPcc) and determine the relation of these measurements to different corneal parameters taken by Pentacam.

METHODS

An observational cross-sectional analytic study included patients who underwent ICRS keraring implantation at 3 months. In each eye, the two rings were placed using the femtosecond laser assisted technique 5.5 or 6 mm from the center. IOP was measured using three different tonometers; GAT, air puff tonometer, and ocular response analyzer (ORA) corneal-compensated IOP (ORA-IOPcc).

RESULTS

Fifty eyes of 30 patients (20 males and 10 females) aged 27.56 ± 6.38 years were included. IOP measurements by GAT, air puff tonometer, and ORA-IOPcc were 13.28 ± 2.13 mmHg, 10.47 ± 2.55 mmHg, and 13.19 ± 2.78 mmHg, respectively. Comparisons between air puff and each of GAT and ORA-IOPcc were statistically highly significant (p-value <0.001).

CONCLUSION

IOP measurements taken by air puff tonometer were significantly lower than those taken by GAT and ORA-IOPcc. These differences were not constant across the pressure range but increased as the pressure values determined using GAT and ORA increased. ORA-IOPcc and GAT showed similar readings. No correlation was found between any of the IOP readings taken by the three tonometers and the central corneal thickness.

Study of corneal biomechanical properties in patients with childhood glaucoma

AIM

To study of corneal biomechanical properties and intraocular pressure (IOP) measured with Corvis Scheimpflug Technology (ST) in patients with childhood glaucoma (CG).

METHODS

Cross-sectional study in which 89 eyes were included 56 of them with CG. Only one eye per patient was included. The following variables were obtained from the clinical history and the ophthalmological examination: age, sex, IOP, number of surgeries, and the cup/disc ratio (CDR). The following parameters were recorded using Corvis ST: corrected by biomechanics IOP (bIOP), not corrected IOP (nctIOP), central corneal thickness (CCT), maximum concavity [radius, peak distance (PD) and deformation amplitude], applanation 1 and 2 (length and velocity). The mean age was 23±14.55 and 33±19.5 years old for the control group and CG group, respectively. Totally 36 were males and 53 were females. In the CG group, 7 patients were controlled only with medical treatment. Sixteen had at least one previous goniotomy, 19 had at least one trabeculectomy, and 11 had an Ahmed implant.

RESULTS

A significant and positive intraclass correlation coefficient was found between Goldman IOP and the IOP measured by Corvis in both groups. No differences were found between the IOP measured with Corvis and Goldman using a student t-test. Regarding biomechanical parameters, there were differences in the applanation length 2 (A-L2), in the applanation velocity 2 (A-V2) and in the PD. By sex, only the applanation length 1 (A-L1) was found to be different in control group. A positive and significant Pearson correlation was found between CDR and the A-L1.

CONCLUSION

Corneal biomechanical properties have shown differences between CG and healthy subjects and also between men and women.

The Effect of Corneal Thickness, Densitometry and Curvature on Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Applanation, Rebound and Dynamic Contour Tonometry

Evaluate the effect of corneal thickness, densitometry and curvature on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), non-contact tonometry (NCT), rebound tonometry (RT), and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT). A cross-sectional prospective study involving 40 participants was performed. Corneal measurements were obtained using Pentacam (Oculus GMbH, Wetzlar, Germany), densitometry was measured at annuli of 0–2, 2–6, 6–10 and 10–12 mm. The relationship between corneal thickness (central, 4 and 6 mm), corneal astigmatism and corneal densitometry and IOP was examined. There was a significant relationship between corneal thickness (central, 4 and 6 mm) and GAT180, GAT90, RT, and NCT (P < 0.001 for all comparisons) but not for DCT. Higher corneal densitometry (6–10 mm and 10–12 mm zones) was associated with higher IOP from GAT180 and GAT90, and higher densitometry in the 6–10 mm zone correlated with higher IOP from NCT, however corneal densitometry increased with age. Accounting for age, the relationship between corneal densitometry and IOP measurements was not significant. In eyes with greater corneal astigmatism there was a greater difference between GAT90 and GAT180 measurements. IOP measurements may be affected by corneal thickness, densitometry and curvature. DCT was less affected by properties of the cornea compared to other devices.

A Review of the Use of Confidence Intervals for Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement in Optometry and Vision Science

SIGNIFICANCE

Confidence intervals are still seldom reported for Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement. When they are reported, 50% of articles use approximate methods and 50% use exact methods.

PURPOSE

Bland-Altman limits of agreement can be unreliable estimates, especially for small sample sizes. However, authors seldom use confidence intervals for limits of agreement. This article reviews their use in Optometry and Vision Science.

METHODS

A keyword search for "Bland," "Altman," "Bland-Altman," "LoA," and "limits of agreement" was conducted on the Optometry and Vision Science website within a time range from January 2016 to December 2018.

RESULTS

Fifty articles were reported or were judged to use Bland-Altman analysis; sample sizes ranged from 3 to 2072. Eight of these article reported confidence limits for limits of agreement, four of which used exact methods and four used Bland and Altman's approximate method.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of confidence intervals for limits of agreement has increased in Optometry and Vision Science but is far from universal. To assist researchers in calculating exact confidence limits for Bland-Altman limits of agreement, spreadsheets are included for performing the calculations and generating Bland-Altman plots with the confidence intervals included.