Comparison between Corvis and other tonometers in healthy eyes

Lanza, Michele; Iaccarino, Stefania; Cennamo, Michela; Irregolare, Carlo; Romano, Vito; Carnevale, U.A. Gironi

doi:10.1016/j.clae.2014.11.001

Cited by 14 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results observed herein agree with most of the previously published papers analyzing the differences among tested devices on healthy subjects [11, 12, 17, 19–22, 24, 26–29]. In this study, a strict measurement order going from the less supposedly “invasive” device for cornea to the one considered to be the most “invasive”, was followed, whereas in other papers a random order was often adopted [10, 29].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Because glaucoma is a chronic degenerative disease and IOP values must be recorded for a patient’s whole life, it is extremely important that a device able to measure IOP without any bias should be available for eye doctors. It is well known that the current gold standard, GAT, does not always provide very precise measurements but new IOP measuring devices haven’t shown uniform accuracy, according to previously published papers [12, 21–29]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to overcome the problem, new tonometers have been developed. These have been designed to avoid the bias related not only to the corneal morphological properties and ocular surface, but also to corneal biomechanical properties, even though the real influence of the latter has not yet been completely established [6–12]. The most important goal of new devices to measure IOP is to provide accurate evaluations, free from the well-known limitations of GAT [13, 14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although studies on repeatability, reproducibility and comparisons among tonometers have already been published [12, 15–24], for the first time we provide a comparison among these 5 devices in naïve eyes and an analysis of differences related to corneal morphological parameters in a large population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices

Lanza¹,

Rinaldi²,

Carnevale³

et al. 2018

BMC Ophthalmol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo evaluate differences of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements performed with Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), rebound tonometry (RT), Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and Corvis ST (CST) in eyes screened for refractive surgery.MethodsOne eye, only the right one, of 146 patients was included in this study. Each participant was submitted to a corneal analysis with Scheimpflug camera and IOP evaluation with GAT, DCT, RT, ORA and CST. Differences in IOP values obtained thanks to each instruments were compared and then correlations between these discrepancies and morphological features such as mean keratometry (MK) and central corneal thickness (CCT) provided by Pentacam were studied. Software used to run statistical evaluations was SPSS, version 18.0.ResultsStudy participants had a mean age of 33.1 ± 9.2 years old. IOP values observed in this study were 15.97 ± 2.47 mmHg (GAT), 17.55 ± 2.42 mmHg (DCT), 17.49 ± 2.08 mmHg (RT), 18.51 ± 2.59 mmHg (ORA) and 18.33 ± 2.31 mmHg (CST). The mean CCT was 560.23 ± 31.00 μm, and the mean MK was 43.33 ± 1.35 D. GAT provided significant lower values in comparison to all other devices. DCT and RT gave significantly lower intermediate IOP values than those measured with ORA and CST. All the IOP measures and the differences between devices were significantly correlated with CCT.ConclusionsAccording to our data, although our findings should be confirmed in further studies, GAT tonometer cannot be used interchangeably with DCT, RT, ORA and CST.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices

Lanza¹,

Rinaldi²,

Carnevale³

et al. 2018

BMC Ophthalmol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Не вы-зывает сомнений необходимость проведения дан-ного исследования у пациентов всех возрастных групп [9,11,15,17,19,25,29,31,32,37,52]. При этом если проблема измерения офтальмотонуса у взрослых исследована достаточно основательно [1,3,7,8,10,19,22,33,46], то многие аспекты измерения внутриглазного давления (ВГД) у де-тей ещё нуждаются в дальнейшем изучении.…”

Section: Doi: 1017816/ov9323-31unclassified

Features of measurement of intraocular pressure in children

Tugeeva

Эльдаровна²,

Brzheskiy

et al. 2016

Ophthalmology Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review discusses the results of various studies conducted in recent years on the comparison of modern methods of measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) in children: pneumotonometry, Maklakov applanation tonometry, and tonometry using Perkins tonometer, Goldmann tonometer, Icare tonometer, Ocular Response Analyzer, TonoPen handheld tonometer, transpalpebral tonometer TIOP01, or a dynamic contour Pascal tonometer. This study discusses the advantages and disadvantages of different methods of measurement of IOP in children, including the evaluation of patients with fibrous lens capsules that might affect the measurement of IOP and an analysis of the characteristics of evaluation of IOP in children with congenital glaucoma.

show abstract

In vivo human corneal deformation analysis with a Scheimpflug camera, a critical review

Lanza¹,

Iaccarino²,

Bifani³

2016

Journal of Biophotonics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corneal morphological analysis has greatly improved in recent years, providing physicians with new and reliable parameters to study. Moreover, today corneal functional too is a routine analysis, thanks to biomechanical evaluation allowed by an ocular response analyzer (Reichert Ophthalmic Instrument, Depew, NY, USA). Corvis ST (OCULUS Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany), that relies on the ultrahigh speed Scheimpflug camera, is a new device providing corneal deformation parameters measured ny scanning the cornea response to an air puff; it is an instrument able to measure intraocular pressure too. This device could open up a whole new prospective in screening, detecting and managing corneal diseases, intraocular pressure measurement and in evaluating surgical procedures involving the cornea. This paper provides a comprehensive explanation of Corvis ST measurement principles and parameters and a literature review of scientific studies.

show abstract

Comparison between Corvis and other tonometers in healthy eyes

Cited by 14 publications

References 29 publications

Analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices

Analysis of differences in intraocular pressure evaluation performed with contact and non-contact devices

Features of measurement of intraocular pressure in children

In vivo human corneal deformation analysis with a Scheimpflug camera, a critical review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About