International Ophthalmology

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 697–703 | Cite as

IOP measurement in silicone oil tamponade eyes by Corvis ST tonometer, Goldmann applanation tonometry and non-contact tonometry

  • Yang Zhang
  • Lin Zheng
  • Ailing Bian
  • Qi ZhouEmail author
Original Paper



To compare the postoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) of eyes following pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) combined with intravitreal silicone oil (SO) tamponade by Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (CST), Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and non-contact tonometry (NCT).


Thirty-eight participants who had undergone PPV combined with SO tamponade to treat vitreoretinal diseases were enrolled. Postoperative IOP measurements were obtained using CST, NCT and GAT. Inter-device agreement was assessed by Bland–Altman analysis. The correlation coefficient was used to describe the potential postoperative factors affecting the postoperative IOP differences between each device.


Bland–Altman analysis revealed the bias between CST and GAT, between CST and NCT, and between GAT and NCT to be −0.2, 2.1 and 2.4 mmHg, respectively. CST and GAT correlated well with each other. NCT values were lower than those of GAT and CST (all p < 0.05), whereas CST values did not differ from the GAT readings. Central corneal thickness, corneal biomechanical properties and age showed significant correlation with the differences of CST–NCT and GAT–NCT.


In SO tamponade eyes, NCT obtains lower IOP than other tonometry techniques, and CST is highly consistent with GAT. CST offers an optional non-contact method for measuring postoperative IOP in SO tamponade eyes.


Intraocular pressure Silicone oil tamponade Goldmann applanation tonometry Corvis ST tonometer Corneal biomechanical properties 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any conflicts of interest in this study.


  1. 1.
    Teke MY, Elgin U, Sen E et al (2014) Intravitreal silicone oil induced changes in corneal biomechanics. Int Ophthalmol 34:457–463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reznicek L, Muth D, Kampik A et al (2013) Evaluation of a novel Scheimpflug-based non-contact tonometer in healthy subjects and patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 97:1410–1414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nemeth G, Hassan Z, Csutak A et al (2013) Repeatability of ocular biomechanical data measurements with a Scheimpflug-based noncontact device on normal corneas. J Refract Surg 29:558–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eller AW, Gardner TW, D’Antonio JA (1992) Survey of intraocular silicone oil use in the United States. Ophthalmology 99:1174–1176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Narayanan R, Tibra N, Mathai A et al (2012) Sutureless 23-gauge versus 20-gauge vitrectomy with silicone oil injection in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Retina 32:1013–1016CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ichhpujani P, Jindal A, Jay Katz L (2009) Silicone oil induced glaucoma: a review. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 247:1585–1593CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doughty MJ, Zaman ML (2000) Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol 44:367–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gunvant P, O’Leary DJ, Baskaran M et al (2005) Evaluation of tonometric correction factors. J Glaucoma 14:337–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schroeder B, Hager A, Kutschan A et al (2008) Measurement of viscoelastic corneal parameters (corneal hysteresis) in patients with primary open angle glaucoma. Ophthalmologe 105:916–920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaushik S, Pandav SS, Banger A et al (2012) Relationship between corneal biomechanical properties, central corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure across the spectrum of glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 153(840–849):e2Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hong J, Yu Z, Jiang C et al (2015) Corvis ST Tonometer for measuring postoperative IOP in LASIK patients. Optom Vis Sci 92:589–595CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Le Q, Wang X, Lv J et al (2012) In vivo laser scanning confocal microscopy of the cornea in patients with silicone oil tamponade after vitreoretinal surgery. Cornea 31:876–882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Ohmoto F et al (2010) Time course of corneal biomechanical parameters after phacoe-mulsification with intraocular lens implantation. Cornea 29:1256–1260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smedowski A, Weglarz B, Tarnawska D et al (2014) Comparison of three intraocular pressure measurement methods including biomechanical properties of the cornea. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55:666–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hong J, Xu J, Wei A et al (2013) A new tonometer-the Corvis ST tonometer: clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:659–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leung CK, Ye C, Weinreb RN (2013) An ultra-high speed Scheimpflug camera for evaluation for corneal deformation response and its impact on IOP measurements. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:2885–2892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kling S, Marcos S (2013) Contributing factors to corneal deformation in air puff measurements. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:5078–5085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huseynova T, Waring GO 4th, Roberts C et al (2014) Corneal biomechanics as a function of intraocular pressure and pachymetry by dynamic infrared signal and Scheimpflug imaging analysis in normal eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 157:885–893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical CollegeChinese Academy of Medical SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations