THE CORNEA AND METHODS FOR MEASURING INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE

Elena Angel Jordanova; Paraskeva Hentova-Sencanic; Ivan Marjanovic; Ivan Sencanin; Ivana Stefanovic; Marko Baralic

doi:10.5937/sanamed0-41040

Elena Angel Jordanova Department of Nephrology, Clinic for Internal Medicine, Clinical Hospital Center Zemun
Paraskeva Hentova-Sencanic Medigroup-ophthalmology infirmary Oftalmika, Belgrade, Serbia
Ivan Marjanovic 1. Clinic for Eye Disease, Clinical Center of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia; 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
Ivan Sencanin Clinic for Eye Disease, Clinical Hospital Center Zvezdara, Belgrade, Serbia
Ivana Stefanovic Municipal Institute for Emergency Medical Aid, Belgrade, Serbia
Marko Baralic 1. Clinic of Nephrology, Clinical Center of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia; 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/sanamed0-41040

Keywords: Cornea, Intraocular pressure, Pachymetry

Abstract

Introduction:The study aimed to assert the relationship between central corneal thickness (CCT) and intraocular pressure (IOP) measured by: Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and Dynamic contour tonometry (DCT).

Materials and Methods:The study included 150 patients with a mean age of 59.39± 13.12 years. Patients were divided into three groups: 50 primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients, 50 ocular hypertension (OHT) patients, and 50 normal tension glaucoma (NTG) patients. IOP was determined using GAT and DCT. CCT was measured by ultrasound pachymetry.

Results: IOP measured with DCT was higher than IOP measured with GAT (19.80± 3.67 mmHg vs 17.71±3.35 mmHg). A significant positive association between IOP measured with GAT and IOP measured with DCT was found in all patients (r= 0.867, p< 0.01). A significantly positive association between IOP measured with GAT and IOP measured with DCT in POAG (r=0.855,p<0.01), OHT (r=0.826,p< 0.01), and NTG patients (r=0.832,p< 0.01) were found. A significant positive correlation between CCT and IOP measured with GAT (r=0.198, p< 0.01), as well as a significant positive correlation between CCT and IOP measured with DCT was found (r=0.198, p< 0.01) in all patients. There was no correlation between CCT and IOP measured neither with GAT nor with DCT separately in three patient groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: CCT-influenced IOP was measured by both methods, GAT and DCT. DCT can not replace GAT, but it is very useful, especially in cases where errors are in the IOP GAT measurement.

References

1. European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma. 4th Edition- Chapter 3: Treatment principles and options Supported by the EGS Foundation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(6): 130-95. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-EGSguideline.003.

2. Allison K, Patel D, Alabi O. Epidemiology of glaucoma: the past, present, and predictions for the future. Cureus. 2020;12(11):e11686.doi: 10.7759/cureus.11686.

3. Allingham R. Rand In Shields' Textbook of Glaucoma,7th edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Wolters Kluwer 2020.p.125-43.

4. Kontadakis AG, Pennos A, Pentari I, Kymionis G, Palikaris I, Ginis H. Accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry and Tono-Pen XL in edematous corneas. Ther Adv Ophtalmol.2020;12:2515841420923190.doi: 10.1177/2515841420923190.

5. Saenz-Frances F, Sanz-Pozo C, Borrego-Sanz L, Jañez L, Morales-Fernandez L, Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, et al. Dependence of dynamic contour and Goldmann applanation tonometrieson peripheral corneal thickness. Int J Ophthalmol 2017; 10(10):1521-7.doi:10.18240/ijo.2017.10.07.

6. Ayyildiz T. Comparision of the results of corneal topography findings in fuchs endothelial dystrophy and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. Sanamed. 2018;13(1):31-4. doi: 10.24125/sanamed.v13i1.210.

7. Šarenac-Vulović T, Janićijević K. Primary open-angle glaucoma and farmacoeconomics: Review. Sanamed. 2016;11(3):243-8. doi: 10.5937/sanamed1603243S.

8. Kouchaki B, Hashemi H, Yekta A, Khabazkhoob M. Comparison of current tonometry techniques in the measurement of intraocular pressure. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2017; 29(2):92-7. doi:10.1016/j.joco.2016.08.010.

9. Ku JYF, Danesh- Meyer HV, Craig JP, Gamble GD, Mc Ghee CNJ. Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Eye (Lond). 2006;20 (2):191-8. doi:10.1038/SJ.eye.6701849.

10. Schneider E, Grehn F. Intraocular pressure measurement- comparation of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2006;15(1):2-6.doi:10.1097/01.ijg.0000196655.85460.d6.

11. Realini T, Weinreb RN, Hobbs G. Correlation of intraocular pressure measured with Goldmann and Dynamic Contour Tonometry in normal and glaucomatous Eyes. J Glaucoma. 2009;18(2):119-23. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e31817d23c7.

12. Barleon L, Hoffmann E, Berres M, Pfeiffer N, Grus FH. Comparation of Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry in glaucoma patients and healthy subjects. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142(4):583-90. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2006.05.030.

13. Punjabi O, Ho H, Kniestedt Ch, Bostrom AG, Stamper RL, Lin SC. Intraocular pressure and ocular pulse amplitude comparisons in different types of glaucoma using Dynamic Contour Tonometry. Current Eye Research. 2006;31(10):851-62. doi:10.1080/02713680600899887.

14. Kniestedt Ch, Lin Sh, Choe J, Nee M, Bostrom A, Stürmer J et al. Correlation between intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness, stage of glaucoma, and demographic patient data. J Glaucoma. 2006;15(2):91- 7. doi:10.1097/00061198-200604000-00003.

15. Marjanovic I, Kontic D, Hentova -Sencanic P, Markovic V, Bozic M. Effect of central corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurement with the Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry. An. Inst.Barraquer (Bare). 2009; 38(1):25- 34.

16. Pache M, Wilmsmeyer S, Lautebach S, Funk JD. Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243 (8):763- 7. 10.1007/s00417-005-1124-y.

17. Kang JM,Tanna AP. Glaucoma. Med Clin North Am. 2021;105(3):493-510.doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2021.01.004.

18. De Castro OJMA, Bertazzi AL, Gracitelli BPC, Tatham JA. The effect of corneal thickness, densitometry and curvature on intraocular pressure measurements obtained by applanation, rebound and dynamic contour tonometry. Vision (Basel).2020; 21;4(4):45.doi: 10.3390/vision4040045.

19. Gvozdenovic R, Risovic D, Marjanovic I, Vukovic D, Stankovic B. Morphometric characteristics of the optic disc in patients with myopia and primary open-angle glaucoma. Vojnosanit Pregled.2013; 70(1):51-6.doi: 10.2298/VSP111229024G.

20. Ayyildiz T. Comparison between amblyopic and other non-amblyopic eyes in terms of the macula and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness. Sanamed. 2018;13(2):159-62. doi: 10.24125/sanamed.v13i2.218.