Which tonometry in eyes with keratoconus?

Altınkaynak, Hasan; Kocasaraç, Can; Dündar, Hüseyin; Sayın, Nihat; Kara, Necip; Bozkurt, Ercüment; Duru, Necati

doi:10.1038/eye.2015.248

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…is artifactually reduced as a consequence of tissue thinning in ectatic disease and following refractive surgery (PRK, SMILE, and LASIK). [40][41][42] Therefore, use of an alternative device that is less dependent on a smooth and regular corneal surface to obtain an accurate measurement is suggested (such as with the pneumatonometer, hand-held Mackay-Marg tonometer, ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer, or rebound tonometer 43 ).…”

Section:  Family Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Corneal Ectasia Preferred Practice Pattern®

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section:  Family Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Corneal Ectasia Preferred Practice Pattern®

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…29 In addition, measurement of intraocular pressure is difficult in patients with keratoconus due to corneal changes. 30 The LC, which is considered the main site of axonal damage in glaucomatous optic neuropathy, may be affected in these patients. In light of our results and the current literature data, we consider that patients with keratoconus should be evaluated more carefully for glaucoma.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Keratoconus More Than Just a Corneal Disease?

Yıldız,

Bolaç

2023

Cornea

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aims of this study were to compare the scleral thickness (ST), lamina cribrosa thickness (LCT), and lamina cribrosa curvature index between patients with keratoconus and healthy controls and to evaluate the relationship between these values and corneal parameters. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 41 eyes of 41 patients with keratoconus and 30 eyes of 30 age-matched, sex-matched, and axial length–matched controls. Nasal and temporal STs were measured vertically, 4 mm posterior to the scleral spur, using anterior segment optical coherence tomography. The LCT was measured on the radial scans of the optic nerve head. The lamina cribrosa curvature index (lamina cribrosa curvature depth/curvature width × 100) was calculated to determine the degree of posterior bowing of the lamina cribrosa. Results: The nasal ST and temporal ST were significantly lower in the keratoconus group than in the control group (P = 0.016 and P = 0.023, respectively). The LCT was significantly lower in the keratoconus group compared with the control group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups for the lamina cribrosa curvature index (P = 0.375). Correlation analysis revealed a significant correlation between the nasal and temporal STs and the central corneal thickness (r = 0.376, P < 0.001 and r = 0.387, P < 0.001, respectively). There was also a significant correlation between the temporal ST and the minimum corneal thickness in the keratoconus group (r = 0.332, P = 0.015). The LCT was significantly correlated with the central corneal thickness (r = 0.445, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Structural features of the cornea, sclera, and lamina cribrosa with similar collagen content may be similarly affected in patients with keratoconus. Further histologic studies are needed to confirm our results.

show abstract

“…Even with GAT, measured IOP in keratoconic eyes is lower than normal. 24 This might be due to lower CCT and CH in keratoconic patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tonometry by Ocular Response Analyzer in Keratoconic and Warpage Eyes in Comparison with Normal Eyes

Alipour

Hassanpoor

Letafatnejad

et al. 2021

Journal of Current Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured by ocular response analyzer (ORA) in contact lens-induced corneal warpage, normal, and keratoconic eyes. Methods: In a prospective, observational case–control study, 94 eyes of 47 warpage-suspected cases and 46 eyes of 23 keratoconic patients were enrolled. Warpage-suspected cases were followed until a definite diagnosis was made (warpage, nonwarpage normal, or keratoconus). ORA tonometry and corneal biomechanics testing were performed for all cases in each visit. We had 2–3 measured corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc) and Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg) for each patient (based on group) with at least 2-week interval. Results: After following up of warpage-suspected patients, finally 44 eyes of 22 patients had confirmed soft contact lens-related corneal warpage. Forty-six eyes of 23 people were finally diagnosed as nonwarpage normal eyes. Forty-six eyes of 23 known keratoconus patients were also included for comparison. The demographic and refractive data were not different between the warpage and nonwarpage normal groups but were different in the keratoconus group. Both IOPcc and IOPg were statistically different with the highest value in the warpage group followed by normal and keratoconus groups; the same trend was observed in central corneal thickness (CCT). The mean of IOPg was 14.94 ± 2.65, 13.7 ± 2.33, and 10.86 ± 3 and IOPcc was 15.73 ± 2.4, 15.28 ± 2.43, and 14.08 ± 2.55 in the warpage, normal, and keratoconus groups, respectively. IOPg and IOPcc in the warpage group (based on baseline diagnosis) did not regress to become closer to IOP of normal eyes after discontinuation of contact lens in their follow-up visits ( P value for IOPg and IOPcc trends in the warpage group was 0.07 and 0.09 controlling for CCT, respectively). Both IOPcc and IOPg were significantly lower in keratoconic eyes in comparison with normal eyes. After correction for the confounding effect of CCT, a lower IOPcc in keratoconus versus warpage remained significant ( P = 0.02). Conclusion: Both IOPcc and IOPg were statistically different with the highest value in the warpage group followed by normal and keratoconus groups, just like their CCT. After correction for the confounding effect of CCT, there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups in their measured IOPcc and IOPg except for IOPcc in keratoconus versus warpage ( P = 0.02).

show abstract

Which tonometry in eyes with keratoconus?

Cited by 9 publications

References 24 publications

Corneal Ectasia Preferred Practice Pattern®

Corneal Ectasia Preferred Practice Pattern®

Is Keratoconus More Than Just a Corneal Disease?

Tonometry by Ocular Response Analyzer in Keratoconic and Warpage Eyes in Comparison with Normal Eyes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About