4.6 Article

Reproducibility and clinical relevance of the ocular response analyzer in nonoperated eyes:: Corneal biomechanical and tonometric implications

期刊

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.07-0280

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To assess the reproducibility of the ocular response analyzer (ORA) in nonoperated eyes and the impact of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements in normal and glaucomatous eyes. METHODS. In the reliability study, two independent examiners obtained repeated ORA measurements in 30 eyes. In the clinical study, the examiners analyzed ORA and IOP-Goldmann values from 220 normal and 42 glaucomatous eyes. In both studies, Goldmann-correlated IOP measurement (IOP-ORAg), corneal-compensated IOP (IOP-ORAc), corneal hysteresis (CH), and corneal resistance factor (CRF) were evaluated. IOP differences of 3 mm Hg or greater between the IOP-ORAc and IOP-ORAg were considered outcome significant. RESULTS. Intraexaminer intraclass correlation coefficients and interexaminer concordance correlation coefficients ranged from 0.78 to 0.93 and from 0.81 to 0.93, respectively, for all parameters. CH reproducibility was highest, and the IOP-ORAg readings were lowest. The median IOP was 16 mm Hg with the Goldmann tonometer, 14.5 mm Hg with IOP-ORAg (P < 0.001), and 15.7 mm Hg with IOP-ORAc (P < 0.001). Outcomesignificant results were found in 77 eyes (29.38%). The IOP-ORAc, CH, and CRF were correlated with age (r = 0.22, P = 0.001; r = -0.23, P = 0.001; r = -0.14, P = 0.02, respectively), but not the IOP-ORAg or IOP-Goldmann. CONCLUSIONS. The ORA provides reproducible corneal biomechanical and IOP measurements in nonoperated eyes. Considering the effect of ORA, corneal biomechanical metrics produces an outcome-significant IOP adjustment in at least one quarter of glaucomatous and normal eyes undergoing noncontact tonometry. Corneal viscoelasticity (CH) and resistance (CRF) appear to decrease minimally with increasing age in healthy adults.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据