Effectiveness of the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, the Dynamic Contour Tonometer, the Ocular Response Analyzer and the Corvis ST in Measuring Intraocular Pressure following FS-LASIK

Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements between Easyton transpalpebral tonometry and Perkins, iCare iC100 and Corvis ST, and the influence of corneal and anterior scleral thickness

PURPOSE

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements between Easyton transpalpebral tonometry and Perkins, iCare iC100 and Corvis ST. Also, to assess the influence of corneal characteristics and anterior scleral thickness (AST) on the IOP measurements.

METHODS

Sixty-nine eyes from 69 healthy subjects were included. IOP was measured by Easyton, Perkins, iC100 and Corvis ST (corrected IOP, bIOP; and non-corrected IOP, IOPnct). Other variables studied were AST, axial length (AL), and Corvis parameters: Length 1, velocity 1, length 2, velocity 2, peak distance, radius, deformation amplitude, and central corneal thickness (CCT). Pearson correlation, limits of agreement (LoA), and multiple regression analysis were calculated.

RESULTS

No significant differences in IOP between Easyton and Perkins, iC100, and bIOP were observed (all p > 0.05), being significant only between Perkins and IOPnct ( - 1.49 mmHg, p < 0.001). Bland-Altman graphs showed that the mean difference between Perkins and Easyton was 0.07 mmHg (p < 0.001), and LoA  - 7.49 to + 7.39 mmHg. Significant correlations were found between the measurements of Perkins and iC100, IOPnct, bIOP (r = 0.710, 0.628, 0.539; p < 0.001 respectively), iC100 and IOPnct, bIOP (r = 0.627, 0.513; p < 0.001, respectively). The multivariate regression analysis revealed that differences between Perkins and Easyton (adjusted R2 = 0.25) were influenced by AL (B = 1.28, p < 0.008), length 1 (B = 3.13, p < 0.018), and the radius (B = 1.26, p < 0.010). Differences between Perkins and bIOP (adjusted R2 = 0.21) were affected by the CCT (B = 0.029, p < 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

There are no significant differences in the IOP measurements between Perkins and Easyton, iC100 or bIOP. Length 1, radius, and CCT have limited influence on these differences, while AST did not show any effect.

Agreement of ocular response analyzer cornea compensated IOP with corvis ST biomechanical IOP following Femtosecond Laser-assisted LASIK

OBJECTIVES

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement by ORA-IOPcc and Corvis-bIOP after femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK (FS-LASIK).

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, 56 eyes from 56 consecutive patients scheduled for FS-LASIK were enrolled. All patients had IOP measurement with ORA and Corvis ST by two blinded independent expert examiners. IOP examinations were conducted between 8 and 11 A.M. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months after FS-LASIK.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 29.1 ± 6.3 years, and 42 (75%) were female. The average of central corneal thickness (CCT) decreased from 537 ± 23 µm at baseline to 458 ± 31 µm after FS-LASIK. The mean postoperative change of IOP was 0.0 ± 2.1 for bIOP and -2.5 ± 3.2 mmHg for IOPcc. The corresponding 95% limits of agreement (LoA) was -4.1 to 4.1 mmHg and -3.8 to 8.8 mmHg, respectively. Both methods showed no significant correlation between ∆IOP and ∆CCT. The 95% LoA between bIOP and IOPcc after FS-LASIK was -4.8 to 9.1 mmHg.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the ORA-IOPcc, the Corvis-bIOP showed less variation after FS-LASIK and might be a more appropriate choice for measuring IOP in this condition. The agreement of bIOP vs. IOPcc after FS-LASIK is below the clinically acceptable level, and the two methods could not be regarded as interchangeable.

Introduction and Clinical Validation of an Updated Biomechanically Corrected Intraocular Pressure bIOP (v2)

PURPOSE

To improve the stability of the Corvis ST biomechanically-corrected intraocular pressure measurements (bIOP) after refractive surgery and its independence of corneal biomechanics.

METHODS

A parametric study was carried out using numerical models simulating the behavior of the eye globe under the effects of IOP and Corvis ST external air pressure and used to develop a new algorithm for bIOP; bIOP(v2). It was tested on 528 healthy participants to evaluate correlations with CCT and age. Its ability to compensate for the geometrical changes was tested in 60 LASIK and 80 SMILE patients with six months follow up. The uncorrected Corvis ST IOP (CVS-IOP) and the two versions of biomechanically corrected IOP; bIOP(v1) and bIOP(v2), were compared.

RESULTS

In the healthy dataset, bIOP(v2) had weak and non-significant correlation with both CCT (R = -0.048, p = .266) and age (R = 0.085, p = .052). For bIOP(v1), the correlation was non-significant with CCT (R = -0.064, p = .139) but significant with age (R = -0.124, p < .05). In both LASIK and SMILE groups, the median change in bIOP(v2) following surgery was below 1 mmHg at follow-up stages and the interquartile range was smaller than both bIOP(v1) and CVS-IOP.

CONCLUSION

The bIOP(v2) algorithm performs better than bIOP(v1) and CVS-IOP in terms of correlation with CCT and age. The bIOP(v2) also demonstrated the smallest variation after LASIK and SMILE refractive surgeries indicating improved ability to compensate for geometrical changes.

Methods for measuring intraocular pressure: disadvantages and advantages

This review of the literature is devoted to the comparison of tonometers based on various operating principles, their advantages and disadvantages. The principles of operation of each considered in the review tonometer are discussed. The features of the structure and mechanisms for measuring the intraocular pressure of various tonometers are highlighted, on the basis of which the anatomical features and other factors that have the greatest impact on the reliability of measurement and accounting of the data obtained in clinical practice are determined.

Evaluating Intraocular Pressure After Myopic Photorefractive Keratectomy: A Comparison of Different Tonometers

PRCIS

All devices evaluated in this study showed a significant underestimation in intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement after myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), Goldmann tonometer more than others. Corneal biomechanics indicated a different influence on the different kinds of tonometry.

PURPOSE

The aim was to investigate the reliability of Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), rebound tonometry (RT), ocular response analyzer (ORA), Corvis ST (CST), and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in IOP evaluation after myopic PRK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One eye of 145 patients who underwent myopic PRK for a refractive defect ranging from -10.25 to -0.50 D (mean -4.69±2.00 D) was included in this retrospective comparative study. A complete eye visit with corneal tomography and IOP measurement with GAT, DCT, ORA, RT, and CST was performed before surgery and at 1, 3, and 6 months follow-up. Values provided by each device were tested and compared at each follow-up. Correlation analyses were run between changes in IOP and the corneal, morphologic and biomechanical parameters were measured after PRK.

RESULTS

GAT, DCT, ORA, RT, and CST showed a significant (P<0.01) underestimation of IOP at 6 months follow-up. GAT showed the greatest underestimation (-14.1%) and stronger correlations with corneal deformation parameter changes, whereas ORA, DCT, and RT appeared to be less conditioned by these variations. At 6 months follow-up DCT, ORA, RT, and CST provided IOP values with nonsignificant differences compared with GAT before PRK.

CONCLUSIONS

Each tested tonometer showed a significant IOP underestimation after myopic PRK. As this was most observed with GAT compared with all devices, we suggest DCT, ORA, RT, or CST to evaluate IOP in these patients following surgery.

Comparison of Three Tonometers in Measuring Intraocular Pressure in Eyes That Underwent Myopic Laser in situ Keratomileusis and Photorefractive Keratectomy

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Biomechanical Effects of tPRK, FS-LASIK, and SMILE on the Cornea

Purpose: The objective of this study is to evaluate the in vivo corneal biomechanical response to three laser refractive surgeries.

Methods: Two hundred and twenty-seven patients who submitted to transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK), femtosecond laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), or small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) were included in this study. All cases were examined with the Corvis ST preoperatively (up to 3 months) and postoperatively at 1, 3, and 6 months, and the differences in the main device parameters were assessed. The three groups were matched in age, gender ratio, corneal thickness, refractive error corrections, optical zone diameter, and intraocular pressure. They were also matched in the preoperative biomechanical metrics provided by the Corvis ST including stiffness parameter at first applanation (SP-A1), integrated inverse radius (IIR), deformation amplitude (DA), and deformation amplitude 2 mm away from apex and the apical deformation (DARatio2mm).

Results: The results demonstrated a significant decrease post-operation in SP-A1 and significant increases in IIR, DA, and DARatio2mm (p < 0.05), all of which indicated reductions in overall corneal stiffness. Inter-procedure comparisons provided evidence that the smallest overall stiffness reduction was in the tPRK group, followed by the SMILE, and then the FS-LASIK group (p < 0.05). These results remained valid after correction for the change in CCT between pre and 6 months post-operation and for the percentage tissue altered. In all three surgery groups, higher degrees of refractive correction resulted in larger overall stiffness losses based on most of the biomechanical metrics.

Conclusion: The corneal biomechanical response to the three surgery procedures varied significantly. With similar corneal thickness loss, the reductions in overall corneal stiffness were the highest in FS-LASIK and the lowest in tPRK.

Intraocular pressure after myopic laser refractive surgery measured with a new Goldmann convex prism: correlations with GAT and ORA

Background

The purpose of this study is to describe measurements using a newly developed modified Goldmann convex tonometer (CT) 1 year after myopic laser refractive surgery. Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements were compared with IOP values obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA).

Methods

Prospective double-masked study performed on thirty eyes of thirty patients that underwent laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK; n = 19) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK; n = 11). IOP was measured before and 3 and 12 months after surgery. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot were calculated to assess the agreement between GAT, CT, IOPg (Goldmann-correlated IOP) and IOPcc (corneal-compensated IOP) from ORA.

Results

Twelve months after LASIK, IOP measured with CT showed the best correlation with IOP measured with GAT before surgery (GATpre) (ICC = 0.886, 95% CI: 0.703–0.956) (15.60 ± 3.27 vs 15.80 ± 3.22; p < 0.000). However, a moderate correlation was found for IOP measured with IOPcc and CT 12 months after LASIK (ICC = 0.568, 95% CI: − 0.185 – 0.843) (15.80 ± 3.22 vs 12.87 ± 2.77; p < 0.004). Twelve months after PRK, CT showed a weak correlation (ICC = − 0.266, 95% CI: − 3.896 – 0.663), compared to GATpre (17.30 ± 3.47 vs 16.01 ± 1.45; p < 0.642), as well as poor correlation (ICC = 0.256, 95% CI: − 0.332 – 0.719) with IOPcc (17.30 ± 3.47 vs 13.38 ± 1.65; p < 0.182).

Conclusions

Twelve months after LASIK, IOP measured with CT strongly correlated with GAT before surgery and could therefore provide an alternative method for measuring IOP after this surgery. More studies regarding this new convex prism are needed to assess its accuracy.

How to Measure Intraocular Pressure: An Updated Review of Various Tonometers

Intraocular pressure (IOP) is an important measurement that needs to be taken during ophthalmic examinations, especially in ocular hypertension subjects, glaucoma patients and in patients with risk factors for developing glaucoma. The gold standard technique in measuring IOP is still Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT); however, this procedure requires local anesthetics, can be difficult in patients with scarce compliance, surgical patients and children, and is influenced by several corneal parameters. Numerous tonometers have been proposed in the past to address the problems related to GAT. The authors review the various devices currently in use for the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP), highlighting the main advantages and limits of the various tools. The continuous monitoring of IOP, which is still under evaluation, will be an important step for a more complete and reliable management of patients affected by glaucoma.

Comparison of correcting myopia and astigmatism with SMILE or FS-LASIK and postoperative higher-order aberrations

AIM

To compare the effect of myopia and astigmatism correction and postoperative change in higher-order aberration as results of receiving small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK).

METHODS

A prospective and non-randomized controlled study was conducted. The subjects are divided into two groups according to different operations received: 229 eyes of 116 patients in the SMILE group and 168 eyes of 86 patients in the FS-LASIK group. All subjects were followed up for 3mo by monitoring their uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), spherical equivalent, higher-order aberrations, and the preoperative and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

At 1wk, 1, and 3mo post-surgery, 224 eyes (97.8%), 227 eyes (99.1%) and 229 eyes (100%) had UCVA≥20/20 in the SMILE group, while 165 eyes (98.2%), 167 eyes (99.4%) and 167 eyes (99.4%) had UCVA≥20/20 in the FS-LASIK group, respectively (χ ²=0.146, 2.135, and 1.124; all P>0.05). BCVA reduction was not observed in both groups at 1 and 3mo of post-surgery (χ ²=0.734 and 1.898, P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the spherical equivalent between the two groups at 1 and 3mo post-surgery, though the percentage of the spherical equivalent within ±0.50 D at 3mo post-surgery was 98% in the SMILE group, which was higher than that of the FS-LASIK group (92%, χ ²=1.872, P>0.05). The root mean square (RMS) values of total high-order aberration, coma, and spherical aberration of the two groups increased significantly in the early postoperative period and decreased after 3mo, but the values were still higher than the preoperative levels (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between the two groups in the RMS values of total higher-order aberrations and specific higher-order aberrations (P>0.05). The incidence of complications in the SMILE group was lower than that in the FS-LASIK group (χ ²=14.52, P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

SMILE and FS-LASIK can effectively treat myopia, significantly improve visual acuity, and increase the total high-order aberration, spherical aberration, and coma. The incidence of complications after SMILE is relatively low.

Agreement of Corrected Intraocular Pressure Values Between Corvis ST and Pentacam in Patients With Keratoconus, Subclinical Keratoconus, and Normal Cornea

PURPOSE

To analyze the agreement of corrected intraocular pressure (IOP) values between Corvis ST (ΔIOP1) and Pentacam (ΔIOP2) in patients with keratoconus (KC), subclinical KC (sub-KC), and normal cornea.

METHODS

In total, 235 eyes were divided into KC, sub-KC, and control groups. Differences in ΔIOP1 (biomechanically corrected IOP minus uncorrected IOP) and ΔIOP2 (central corneal thickness-corrected amounts of IOP) were analyzed within and among groups. Topographical and biomechanical differences were compared among the 3 groups. Factors affecting differences between ΔIOP1 and ΔIOP2 were analyzed. Agreement analysis of ΔIOP2 and ΔIOP1 was performed by Bland-Altman plots for all 3 groups.

RESULTS

Mean ΔIOP1 was highest in the KC group (1.23 ± 0.84 mm Hg), followed by sub-KC and control groups (all P < 0.05). Deformation amplitude ratio at 2 mm (DA-2 mm), integrated radius, stiffness parameter at first applanation, and Corvis biomechanical index values significantly differed between sub-KC and control groups. The differences between ΔIOP1 and ΔIOP2 were affected by stiffness parameter at first applanation, after adjusting for central corneal thickness and age, in all 3 groups. The lowest agreement between ΔIOP2 and ΔIOP1 was observed in the KC group (mean difference: 1.90 mm Hg; 95% limit of agreement ranged from -0.2 to 3.9 mm Hg).

CONCLUSIONS

Among the 3 groups in this study, the KC group exhibited the worst consistency between ΔIOP2 and ΔIOP1. For the sub-KC and control groups, corrected IOP values derived by Pentacam were similar to Corvis ST. Ophthalmologists should carefully consider the mechanical properties of eyes with KC during IOP management.