Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMcCafferty, Sean
dc.contributor.authorLevine, Jason
dc.contributor.authorSchwiegerling, Jim
dc.contributor.authorEnikov, Eniko T.
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-12T16:14:00Z
dc.date.available2018-02-12T16:14:00Z
dc.date.issued2018-01-04
dc.identifier.citationGoldmann and error correcting tonometry prisms compared to intracameral pressure 2018, 18 (1) BMC Ophthalmologyen
dc.identifier.issn1471-2415
dc.identifier.pmid29301514
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12886-017-0668-z
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/626542
dc.description.abstractBackground: Compare Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) prism and correcting applanation tonometry surface (CATS) prism to intracameral intraocular pressure (IOP), in vivo and in vitro. Methods: Pressure transducer intracameral IOP was measured on fifty-eight (58) eyes undergoing cataract surgery and the IOP was modulated manometrically to 10, 20, and 40 mmHg. Simultaneously, IOP was measured using a Perkins tonometer with a standard GAT prism and a CATS prism at each of the intracameral pressures. Statistical comparison was made between true intracameral pressures and the two prism measurements. Differences between the two prism measurements were correlated to central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal resistance factor (CRF). Human cadaver eyes were used to assess measurement repeatability. Results: The CATS tonometer prism measured closer to true intracameral IOP than the GAT prism by 1.7+/-2.7 mmHg across all pressures and corneal properties. The difference in CATS and GAT measurements was greater in thin CCT corneas (2.7+/-1.9 mmHg) and low resistance (CRF) corneas (2.8+/-2.1 mmHg). The difference in prisms was negligible at high CCT and CRF values. No difference was seen in measurement repeatability between the two prisms. Conclusion: A CATS prism in Goldmann tonometer armatures significantly improve the accuracy of IOP measurement compared to true intracameral pressure across a physiologic range of IOP values. The CATS prism is significantly more accurate compared to the GAT prism in thin and less rigid corneas. The in vivo intracameral study validates mathematical models and clinical findings in IOP measurement between the GAT and CATS prisms.
dc.description.sponsorshipNIH SBIR Grant [R43 EY026821-01]; Arizona Eye Consultants, Tucson, AZ; Abbott Medical Opticsen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherBIOMED CENTRAL LTDen
dc.relation.urlhttps://bmcophthalmol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12886-017-0668-zen
dc.rights© The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectGlaucomaen
dc.subjectIntraocular pressureen
dc.subjectIOPen
dc.subjectGoldmannen
dc.subjectBiasen
dc.subjectErroren
dc.subjectPerkinsen
dc.subjectTonometeren
dc.subjectApplanationen
dc.subjectCCTen
dc.subjectCentral corneal thicknessen
dc.subjectCRFen
dc.subjectCorneal resistance factoren
dc.subjectIntracameralen
dc.subjectCadaver eyeen
dc.subjectIn vivoen
dc.subjectIn vitroen
dc.subjectHead positionen
dc.subjectUprighten
dc.subjectSupineen
dc.subjectManometricen
dc.subjectCorneal hydrationen
dc.titleGoldmann and error correcting tonometry prisms compared to intracameral pressureen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Coll Opt Sci LLC, Coll Med, Dept Ophthalmol Intuor Technolen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Coll Med, Dept Ophthalmolen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Coll Optic Sci, Dept Ophthalmolen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Coll Engn, Dept Aerosp & Mechen
dc.identifier.journalBMC Ophthalmologyen
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.en
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen
refterms.dateFOA2018-09-12T01:27:29Z
html.description.abstractBackground: Compare Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) prism and correcting applanation tonometry surface (CATS) prism to intracameral intraocular pressure (IOP), in vivo and in vitro. Methods: Pressure transducer intracameral IOP was measured on fifty-eight (58) eyes undergoing cataract surgery and the IOP was modulated manometrically to 10, 20, and 40 mmHg. Simultaneously, IOP was measured using a Perkins tonometer with a standard GAT prism and a CATS prism at each of the intracameral pressures. Statistical comparison was made between true intracameral pressures and the two prism measurements. Differences between the two prism measurements were correlated to central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal resistance factor (CRF). Human cadaver eyes were used to assess measurement repeatability. Results: The CATS tonometer prism measured closer to true intracameral IOP than the GAT prism by 1.7+/-2.7 mmHg across all pressures and corneal properties. The difference in CATS and GAT measurements was greater in thin CCT corneas (2.7+/-1.9 mmHg) and low resistance (CRF) corneas (2.8+/-2.1 mmHg). The difference in prisms was negligible at high CCT and CRF values. No difference was seen in measurement repeatability between the two prisms. Conclusion: A CATS prism in Goldmann tonometer armatures significantly improve the accuracy of IOP measurement compared to true intracameral pressure across a physiologic range of IOP values. The CATS prism is significantly more accurate compared to the GAT prism in thin and less rigid corneas. The in vivo intracameral study validates mathematical models and clinical findings in IOP measurement between the GAT and CATS prisms.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
s12886-017-0668-z.pdf
Size:
1.581Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Published Version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.