4.2 Article

The effect of central corneal thickness on Goldmann tonometry: a retrospective study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages 253-259

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-021-02021-7

Keywords

Central corneal thickness; Intraocular pressure; Goldmann applanation tonometry; Photorefractive keratectomy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective study on 112 eyes from 56 patients who underwent photorefractive keratectomy found that the change in intraocular pressure after surgery was not clinically significant, and there was no correlation between postoperative central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure.
Purpose To determine the relation between central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure. Patients and methods This retrospective study investigated 112 eyes from 56 individuals who underwent photorefractive keratectomy in a single private medical center between May 2018 and September 2019. Intraocular pressure readings were obtained with Goldmann applanation tonometry, and central corneal thickness measurements were evaluated preoperatively. All the examinations were repeated at 3 and 6 months postoperative. Results At 3 and 6 months postoperative, the mean intraocular pressure was only slightly reduced from baseline (mean reduction of 0.6 +/- 2.0 mmHg, P < 0.001 and 0.73 +/- 2.14 mmHg, P < 0.001, respectively). The change in intraocular pressure following photorefractive keratectomy was not clinically significant, and this change was not correlated with postoperative central corneal thickness at 3 months (p = 0.620, r = 0.047). Conclusion This study showed that the change in intraocular pressure following photorefractive keratectomy was not clinically significant, and ruled out a correlation in this context between the change in central corneal thickness and the delta intraocular pressure. Our results might question the axiom between central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure and may thus challenge the current clinical setting for evaluating glaucoma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available