Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative analysis of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure with corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology versus conventional noncontact intraocular pressure

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the difference between biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure (bIOP) and noncontact IOP measurement (IOPNCT) and to investigate the effect of corneal biomechanical properties on IOP.

Methods

IOP was evaluated in 1046 myopic eyes (544 subjects) using a conventional noncontact tonometer and a novel corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (Corvis ST). Corneal biomechanical parameters were measured using the Corvis ST.

Results

The mean IOPNCT and bIOP values were significantly different (15.59 ± 2.56 mmHg and 15.89 ± 1.75 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.001). The bIOP showed a less correlation with central corneal thickness (CCT), compared with IOPNCT (P < 0.01). The IOPNCT was lower than the bIOP when the thickness of cornea was ≤ 550 μm but higher than bIOP when it was ≥ 550 μm (P < 0.01). A strong association was found between IOPNCT and deflection amplitude and deflection area at the highest concavity (HC DefA and HC DefArea), stiff parameter, maximum deformation amplitude (DAmax), and maximum deflection amplitude (DefAmax), as well as for bIOP (r > 0.500, P < 0.001). The bIOP could be calculated based on IOPNCT according to different values of CCT (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

The bIOP was less affected by CCT as compared to IOPNCT. IOPNCT may be underestimated when the cornea is thinner and overestimated when the cornea is thicker because of the difference in corneal biomechanics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hollows FC, Graham PA (1966) Intra-ocular pressure, glaucoma, and glaucoma suspects in a defined population. Br J Ophthalmol 50:570–586

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lanza M, Iaccarino S, Mele L, Carnevale UA, Irregolare C, Lanza A, Femiano F, Bifani M (2016) Intraocular pressure evaluation in healthy eyes and diseased ones using contact and non-contact devices. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 39:154–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yang S, Su X, Xiu L, Miao H, Fang X, Zhou X (2016) Changes in intraocular pressure values measured with noncontact tonometer (NCT), ocular response analyzer (ORA) and corvis Scheimpflug technology tonometer (CST) in the early phase after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). BMC Ophthalmol 16:205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S (1975) Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol 53:34–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Damji KF, Muni RH, Munger RM (2003) Influence of corneal variables on accuracy of intraocular pressure measurement. J Glaucoma 12:69–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vinciguerra R, Elsheikh A, Roberts CJ, Ambrósio R Jr, Kang DS, Lopes BT, Morenghi E, Azzolini C, Vinciguerra P (2016) Influence of pachymetry and intraocular pressure on dynamic corneal response parameters in healthy patients. J Refract Surg 32:550–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hsu SY, Sheu MM, Hsu AH, Wu KY, Yeh JI, Tien JN, Tsai RK (2009) Comparisons of intraocular pressure measurements: Goldmannn applanation tonometry, noncontact tonometry, Tono-Pen tonometry, and dynamic contour tonometry. Eye (Lond) 23:1582–1588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim NR, Kim CY, Kim H, Seong GJ, Lee ES (2011) Comparison of Goldmannn applanation tonometer, noncontact tonometer, and tonoPen XL for intraocular pressure measurement in different types of glaucomatous, ocular hypertensive, and normal eyes. Curr Eye Res 36:295–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee M, Ahn J (2016) Effects of central corneal stromal thickness and epithelial thickness on intraocular pressure using Goldmannn applanation and non-contact tonometers. PLoS ONE 11:e0151868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shimmyo M, Ross AJ, Moy A, Mostafavi R (2003) Intraocular pressure, Goldmann applanation tension, corneal thickness, and corneal curvature in Caucasians, Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans. Am J Ophthalmol 136:603–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu J, Roberts CJ (2005) Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:146–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN (2006) Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma 15:364–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Roberts CJ (2014) Concepts and misconceptions in corneal biomechanics. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:862–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Piñero DP, Alcón N (2014) In vivo characterization of corneal biomechanics. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:870–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Reznicek L, Muth D, Kampik A, Neubauer AS, Hirneiss C (2013) Evaluation of a novel Scheimpflug-based non-contact tonometer in healthy subjects and patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 97:1410–1414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nemeth G, Hassan Z, Csutak A, Szalai E, Berta A, Modis L Jr (2013) Repeatability of ocular biomechanical data measurements with a Scheimpflug-based noncontact device on normal corneas. J Refract Surg 29:558–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Vinciguerra R, Ambrós R Jr, Elsheikh A, Roberts CJ, Lopes B, Morenghi E, Azzolini C, Vinciguerra P (2016) Detection of keratoconus with a new biomechanical index. J Refract Surg 32:803–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Joda AA, Shervin MM, Kook D, Elsheikh A (2016) Development and validation of a correction equation for Corvis tonometry. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 19:943–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fontes BM, Ambrósio R Jr, Jardim D, Velarde GC, Nosé W (2010) Corneal biomechanical metrics and anterior segment parameters in mild keratoconus. Ophthalmology 117:673–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hong J, Xu J, Wei A, Deng SX, Cui X, Yu X, Sun X (2013) A new tonometer—the Corvis ST tonometer: clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmannn applanation tonometers. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:659–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bhorade AM, Gordon MO, Wilson B, Weinreb RN, Kass MA, Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group (2009) Variability of intraocular pressure measurements in observation participants in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Ophthalmology 116:717–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu JH, Sit AJ, Weinreb RN (2005) Variation of 24-hour intraocular pressure in healthy individuals: right eye versus left eye. Ophthalmology 112:1670–1675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nyquist GW (1968) Rheology of the cornea: experimental techniques and results. Exp Eye Res 7:183–188

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Woo SL, Kobayashi AS, Lawrence C, Schlegel WA (1972) Mathematical model of the corneo-scleral shell as applied to intraocular pressure-volume relations and applanation tonometry. Ann Biomed Eng 1:87–98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Elsheikh A, Wang D, Rama P, Campanelli M, Garway-Heath D (2008) Experimental assessment of human corneal hysteresis. Curr Eye Res 33:205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, Jong M, Naidoo KS, Sankaridurg P, Wong TY, Naduvilath TJ, Resnikoff S (2016) Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology 123:1036–1042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Morgan IG, Ohno-Matsui K, Saw SM (2012) Myopia. Lancet 379:1739–1748

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 81670884 and 81873684). The funding organization had no role in the design or conduct of this research. All the authors have no financial or proprietary interest in any methods or materials described within this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical College of Ophthalmology, Tianjin Medical University, No. 4. Gansu Road, He-ping District, Tianjin, 300020, China

    Jiaonan Ma, Yan Wang & Weiting Hao

  2. Tianjin Eye Hospital, Tianjin Eye Institute, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Nankai University Affiliated Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China

    Yan Wang

  3. UPMC Eye Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Vishal Jhanji

Authors
  1. Jiaonan Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Weiting Hao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vishal Jhanji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All other authors certify that they have no affiliations with or no involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest, or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (the Ethics Committee of Tianjin Eye Hospital) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individuals participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, J., Wang, Y., Hao, W. et al. Comparative analysis of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure with corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology versus conventional noncontact intraocular pressure. Int Ophthalmol 40, 117–124 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01159-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01159-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation