Repeatability of Intraocular Pressure and Corneal Biomechanical Properties Measurements by the Ocular Response Analyser

Kynigopoulos, Myron; Schlote, Torsten; Kotecha, A.; Tzamalis, Argyrios; Pajic, Bojan; Haefliger, Ivan O.

doi:10.1055/s-2008-1027256

Cited by 38 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…18 The intrasession repeatability of GAT and IOPg measurements have generally been found to be within about 2 mm Hg. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24] In addition, inter-examiner variability or bias is an issue that is theoretically eliminated with the use of an objective assessment of IOP such as ORA-generated IOPg that would eliminate the need for masked IOP assessment protocols in the research setting. In a population-based epidemiologic study, Dielemans et al 19 investigated GAT test-retest reliability and found a mean intra-observer variation of 1.64 mm Hg and inter-observer variation of 1.79 mm Hg.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Evaluation of agreement between intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry and Goldmann correlated intraocular pressure by Reichert's ocular response analyser

Ehrlich

Haseltine

Shimmyo

et al. 2010

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare agreement of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and Goldmann correlated intraocular pressure generated (IOPg) by the Reichert ocular response analyser (ORA). Methods Consecutive patients presenting for glaucoma evaluation underwent ORA assessment followed by examination including GAT. For each ORA assessment, measurements were taken until a waveform score (WS) of 6.5 was obtained or until five measurements were obtained per eye. The relationship between GAT and IOPg and the influence of the WS upon this relationship was evaluated. A Bland-Altman plot and linear regression were used to determine agreement between GAT and IOPg. Results A total of 518 eyes of 260 patients were included in the final analysis. Increasing WS was found to predict a smaller difference between GAT and IOPg (b ¼ À0.2, Pp0.001). Selecting the highest WS among ORA assessments of each eye, WS continued to predict concordance between GAT and IOPg (b ¼ À0.2, P ¼ 0.006). The mean IOP difference between methods was 0.1 mm Hg (±0.3), which was found to be statistically insignificant (P ¼ 0.391). This relationship between GAT and IOPg was successfully validated using a second distinct data set of 100 eyes. GAT and IOPg measurements varied by 2 mm Hg or less in 53.9% of eyes and 5 mm Hg or less in 92.3% of eyes. Conclusion In clinical practice IOPg is strongly related to GAT. Although higher WS is indicative of greater IOPg/GAT concordance, its influence is minimal. This study does not support the use of a specific WS cutoff to determine quality of an IOPg measurement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Evaluation of agreement between intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry and Goldmann correlated intraocular pressure by Reichert's ocular response analyser

Ehrlich

Haseltine

Shimmyo

et al. 2010

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Up until recently, the only device conducting in vivo measurements of the ocular biomechanical properties has been the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA, Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Depew, New York, USA) which became commercially available in 2005. 2,3 With the introduction of ORA, an emphasis has been laid on the biomechanical measurements of the cornea in glaucoma diagnosis and in the assessment of the outcomes of refractive surgeries and corneal collagen cross-linking therapies. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Already the first publication reported differences in the parameters measured with ORA in healthy and keratoconus eyes and in those subsequent to refractive surgeries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeatability of Ocular Biomechanical Data Measurements With a Scheimpflug-Based Noncontact Device on Normal Corneas

Németh¹,

Hassan²,

Csutak³

et al. 2013

J Refract Surg

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

any of the instruments used in this study. Flattest and steepest keratometric data and also IOP showed highly significant correlation with the ten specific CorVis ST parameters. Conclusions:The novel technique measuring ocular biomechanical properties showed high repeatability for only IOP and pachymetric data determined in our study. Single measurements are not reliable in case of the ten device-specific parameters. The equipment allows for conducting clinical examinations, and screenings of surgeries altering ocular biomechanical properties with some form of averaging of multiple measurements.

show abstract

“…Until recently, the only device which conducted in vivo measurements of the ocular biomechanical properties was the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA, Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Depew, New York, USA), which has been available since 2005 [2,3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examination of ocular biomechanics with a new Scheimpflug technology after corneal refractive surgery

Hassan¹,

Módis²,

Szalai³

et al. 2014

Contact Lens and Anterior Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tPurpose: To analyze the early results of a new device measuring ocular biomechanics after corneal refractive surgery. Patients and methods: Thirty nine refractive surgery patients were enrolled in the study (age: 32.6 ± 9.9 years). Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) was performed on 52 eyes of 26 patients and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) was done on 26 eyes of 13 patients. Ten device-specific biomechanical parameters, intraocular pressure (IOP) and pachymetry were measured preoperatively and at day 1, week 1 and month 1 after the surgeries with a new technology based on Scheimpflug imaging (CorVis ST, Oculus). Results: In case of LASIK, the day after the procedure, radius values showed significant differences compared to preoperative data. One month after surgery, radius values, velocity of the second applanation and pachymetry showed significant differences compared to preoperative data. In case of PRK, the day after the procedure, significant differences in IOP, maximum amplitude at the apex, A1 time, A2 velocity and highest concavity time were measured. After 1 month of PRK, there were no differences in the parameters compared to preoperative data except pachymetry. Conclusions: We observed that some specific biomechanical parameters changed measured with CorVis ST after LASIK and PRK, in the early postoperative time. However, most of these parameters remain unchanged after one month of LASIK and PRK compared to preoperative data.

show abstract

Repeatability of Intraocular Pressure and Corneal Biomechanical Properties Measurements by the Ocular Response Analyser

Abstract: ORA measurements show good short-term repeatability in normal volunteers. Thus, this device appears to be applicable in clinical practice.

Cited by 38 publications

References 11 publications

Evaluation of agreement between intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry and Goldmann correlated intraocular pressure by Reichert's ocular response analyser

Evaluation of agreement between intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry and Goldmann correlated intraocular pressure by Reichert's ocular response analyser

Repeatability of Ocular Biomechanical Data Measurements With a Scheimpflug-Based Noncontact Device on Normal Corneas

Examination of ocular biomechanics with a new Scheimpflug technology after corneal refractive surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About