Advertisement

Comparison of different devices to measure the intraocular pressure in thyroid-associated orbitopathy

  • Aylin Garip KueblerEmail author
  • Caroline Wiecha
  • Lukas Reznicek
  • Annemarie Klingenstein
  • Kathrin Halfter
  • Siegfried Priglinger
  • Christoph Hintschich
Oculoplastics and Orbit
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the correlation of the intraocular pressure measurements (IOP) with non-contact tonometer Corvis Scheimpflug technology (Corvis ST), Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), ocular response analyzer (ORA), and iCARE rebound tonometer in patients with thyroid-associated orbitopathy (TAO) and eye-healthy subjects (control group).

Methods

Twenty-nine consecutive patients with TAO (79% female) and 30 eye-healthy subjects (60% female) were included in this prospective, age- and sex-matched study. The IOP measurement with Corvis, ORA, GAT, iCARE, and central corneal thickness (CCT) with Corvis was obtained from all study participants.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 51 ± 10 years in patients with TAO and 56 ± 13 years in the control group. The mean IOP measurements with GAT, Corvis, ORA, and iCARE were 15.93 ± 4.42 mmHg, 18.10 ± 7.54 mmHg, 18.40 ± 7.93 mmHg, and 16.61 ± 7.96 mmHg in patients with TAO and 14.52 ± 3.02 mmHg, 14.48 ± 3.38 mmHg, 15.29 ± 4.64 mmHg, and 14.13 ± 3.85 mmHg in the control group (P = 0.157, P = 0.004, P = 0.017, and P = 0.176 respectively). The mean CCT was 547.5 ± 39.2 μm in patients with TAO and 560.8 ± 49.8 μm in the control group ( P= 0.261).

Conclusions

The data collected shows an agreement between the iCARE and GAT IOP measurements in TAO patients and in eye-healthy patients. However, the mean value of IOP measurements with Corvis and ORA was significantly higher in patients with TAO in comparison with the control group (P = 0.044 and P = 0.029 respectively).

Keywords

Thyroid-associated orbitopathy Intraocular pressure Corvis ST Goldmann applanation tonometry ORA iCARE 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of Institutional Review Board, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Eye Hospital, Munich in Germany, also with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Bartley GB, Gorman CA (1995) Diagnostic criteria for Graves’ ophthalmopathy. Am J Ophthalmol 119(6):792–795Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kalmann R, Mourits MP (1998) Prevalence and management of elevated intraocular pressure in patients with Graves’ orbitopathy. Br J Ophthalmol 82(7):754–757Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ohtsuka K, Nakamura Y (2000) Open-angle glaucoma associated with Graves disease. Am J Ophthalmol 129(5):613–617Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Kniestedt C, Punjabi O, Lin S, Stamper RL (2008) Tonometry through the ages. Surv Ophthalmol 53(6):568–591Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lam A, Chen D, Chiu R, Chui WS (2007) Comparison of IOP measurements between ORA and GAT in normal Chinese. Optom Vis Sci 84(9):909–914Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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(5):364–370Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prummel MF, Bakker A, Wiersinga WM, Baldeschi L, Mourits MP, Kendall-Taylor P et al (2003) Multi-center study on the characteristics and treatment strategies of patients with Graves’ orbitopathy: the first European Group on Graves’ Orbitopathy experience. Eur J Endocrinol 148(5):491–495Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gomi CF, Yates B, Kikkawa DO, Levi L, Weinreb RN, Granet DB (2007) Effect on intraocular pressure of extraocular muscle surgery for thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy. Am J Ophthalmol 144(5):654–657Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cant JS, Wilson TM (1974) The ocular and orbital circulations in dysthyroid ophthalmopathy. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K 94(2):416–429Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manor RS, Kurz O, Lewitus Z (1974) Intraocular pressure in endocrinological patients with exophthalmos. Ophthalmologica. 168(4):241–252Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vanni V, Vozza R (1960) Behavior of ocular tension in various types of exophthalmos. Boll Ocul 39:189–197Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cockerham KP, Pal C, Jani B, Wolter A, Kennerdell JS (1997) The prevalence and implications of ocular hypertension and glaucoma in thyroid-associated orbitopathy. Ophthalmology. 104(6):914–917Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allen C, Stetz D, Roman SH, Podos S, Som P, Davies TF (1985) Prevalence and clinical associations of intraocular pressure changes in Graves’ disease. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 61(1):183–187Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nardi M, Bartolomei MP, Romani A, Barca L (1988) Intraocular pressure changes in secondary positions of gaze in normal subjects and in restrictive ocular motility disorders. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 226(1):8–10Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whitacre MM, Stein R (1993) Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol 38(1):1–30Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    La Rosa FA, Gross RL, Orengo-Nania S (2001) Central corneal thickness of Caucasians and African Americans in glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous populations. Arch Ophthalmol 119(1):23–27Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brandt JD, Beiser JA, Kass MA, Gordon MO (2001) Central corneal thickness in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS). Ophthalmology. 108(10):1779–1788Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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(11):1410–1414Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moghimi S, Safizadeh M, Mazloumi M, Hosseini H, Vahedian Z, Rajabi MT (2016) Evaluation of corneal biomechanical properties in patients with thyroid eye disease using ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma 25(3):269–273Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roberts CJ (2016) Importance of accurately assessing biomechanics of the cornea. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 27(4):285–291Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mangouritsas G, Morphis G, Mourtzoukos S, Feretis E (2009) Association between corneal hysteresis and central corneal thickness in glaucomatous and non-glaucomatous eyes. Acta Ophthalmol 87(8):901–905Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nakamura M, Darhad U, Tatsumi Y, Fujioka M, Kusuhara A, Maeda H et al (2006) Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of applanation tonometers. Am J Ophthalmol 142(2):332–334Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Parisi L (2006) Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 15(3):213–217Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jorge JM, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Queiros A, Fernandes P, Parafita MA (2008) Correlations between corneal biomechanical properties measured with the ocular response analyzer and ICare rebound tonometry. J Glaucoma 17(6):442–448Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hong J, Xu J, Wei A, Deng SX, Cui X, Yu X et al (2013) A new tonometer--the Corvis ST tonometer: clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54(1):659–665Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smedowski A, Weglarz B, Tarnawska D, Kaarniranta K, Wylegala E (2014) Comparison of three intraocular pressure measurement methods including biomechanical properties of the cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55(2):666–673Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyLudwig-Maximilians-UniversityMunichGermany
  2. 2.Private Praxis Professor Lachenmayr & PD ReznicekMunichGermany
  3. 3.The Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and EpidemiologyLudwig-Maximilians-UniversityMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations