Pediatric Examination Under Anesthesia

  • Mahmoud A. Fayed
  • Teresa C. Chen
  • Oscar Albis-Donado
  • Elena Bitrian


Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to minimize the degree of visual impairment in pediatric glaucoma patients. While numerous advances have decreased the frequency with which examination under anesthesia (EUA) in the operating room is required in the care of a particular child with glaucoma, the EUA nonetheless remains important in providing optimal care for children with glaucoma to augment those examination details that may not be easily obtained in the clinic. An EUA is hence often required to diagnose, to assess the severity and presence of progression, to initiate treatment, and to help determine the exact surgical strategy in complex cases or after initial medical treatment has failed to control the glaucoma.


Examination under anesthesia Gonioscopy Posterior segment evaluation Measurement of intraocular pressure Central corneal thickness Ultrasound Corneal diameter Optic disc assessment Axial length 


  1. 1.
    Papadopoulos M, Brandt JD, Sugiyama K, Khaw PT, Chua J, Law S, et al. Establishing the diagnosis and determining glaucoma progression. In: Weinreb RN, Grajewski A, Papadopoulos M, Grigg J, Freedman S, editors. Childhood glaucoma, WGA consensus series 9. Amsterdam: Kugler Publications; 2013. p. 15–42.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sihota R, Tuli D, Dada T, et al. Distribution and determinants of intraocular pressure in a normal pediatric population. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2006;43(1):14–8. quiz 36–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lambert SR, Melia M, Buffenn AN, Chiang MF, Simpson JL, Yang MB. Rebound tonometry in children: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(4):e21–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mok KH, Wong CS, Lee VW. Tono-Pen tonometer and corneal thickness. Eye (Lond). 1999;13(Pt 1):35–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tonnu PA, Ho T, Sharma K, White E, Bunce C, Garway-Heath D. A comparison of four methods of tonometry: method agreement and interobserver variability. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(7):847–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christoffersen T, Fors T, Ringberg U, Holtedahl K. Tonometry in the general practice setting (I): Tono-Pen compared to Goldman applanation tonometry. Acta Ophthalmol. 1993;71(1):103–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hessemer V, Rossler R, Jacobi KW. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements with the Oculab Tono-Pen vs manometry in humans shortly after death. Am J Ophthalmol. 1988;105(6):678–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kao SF, Lichter PR, Bergstrom TJ, Rowe S, Musch DC. Clinical comparison of the Oculab Tono-Pen to the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Ophthalmology. 1987;94(12):1541–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kooner KS, Cooksey JC, Barron JB, Zimmerman TJ, Gupte RK, Wall JL. Tonometry comparison: Goldmann versus Tono-Pen. Ann Ophthalmol. 1992;24(1):29–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levy J, Lifshitz T, Rosen S, Tessler Z, Biedner BZ. Is the Tono-Pen accurate for measuring intraocular pressure in young children with congenital glaucoma? JAAPOS. 2005;9(4):321–5.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yilmaz I, Altan C, Aygit ED, Alagoz C, Baz O, Ahmet S, et al. Comparison of three methods of tonometry in normal subjects: Goldmann applanation tonometer, non-contact airpuff tonometer, and Tono-Pen XL. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:1069–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arora R, Bellamy H, Austin M. Applanation tonometry: a comparison of the Perkins handheld and Goldmann slit lamp-mounted methods. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;26(8):605–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Markiewitz HH. The so-called Imbert-Fick law. Arch Ophthalmol. 1960;64:159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jamal KN, Gürses-Ozden R, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Attempted eyelid closure affects intraocular pressure measurement in open-angle glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134(2):186–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lam AK, Lam CH. Effect of breath-holding on pulsatile ocular blood flow measurement in normal subjects. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81(8):597–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;44(5):367–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaafar MS, Kazi GA. Normal intraocular pressure in children: a comparative study of the Perkins applanation tonometer and the pneumatonometer. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1993;30(5):284–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whitacre MM, Emig M, Hassanein K. The effect of Perkins, Tono-Pen, and Schiötz tonometry on intraocular pressure. Am J Ophthalmol. 1991;111(1):59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rao VJ, Gnanaraj L, Mitchell KW, Figueiredo FC. Clinical comparison of ocular blood flow tonometer, Tonopen, and Goldmann applanation tonometer for measuring intraocular pressure in postkeratoplasty eyes. Cornea. 2001;20(8):834–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eisenberg DL, Sherman BG, McKeown CA, Schuman JS. Tonometry in adults and children. A manometric evaluation of pneumatonometry, applanation, and TonoPen in vitro and in vivo. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(7):1173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Currie BD, Bagga H, Rademaker AW, Tanna AP. Effect of instrument orientation on the accuracy of intraocular pressure measurements in human cadaveric eyes: manometric evaluation of the model 30 classic Pneumatonometer and Tono-Pen XL. J Glaucoma. 2011;20(8):465–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herr A, Remky A, Hirsch T, Rennings C, Plange N. Tonometry in corneal edema after cataract surgery: dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:815–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garcia-Feijoo J, Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Morales-Fernandez L, Saenz Frances F, Santos-Bueso E, Garcia-Saenz S, Mendez-Hernandez C. New technologies for measuring intraocular pressure. Prog Brain Res. 2015;221:67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anderson DR. The development of the trabecular meshwork and its abnormality in primary infantile glaucoma. Tans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1981;79:458–85.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gupta V, Jha R, Srinivasan G, Dada T, Sihota R. Ultrasound biomicroscopic characteristics of the anterior segment in primary congenital glaucoma. J AAPOS. 2007;11:546–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, Bradfield YS, Melia BM, Repka MX, Kaminski BM, Davitt BV, Johnson DA, et al. Central corneal thickness in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(9):1132–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brandt JD, Beiser JA, Kass MA, Gordon MO. Central Corneal Thickness in the Ocular Hyoertension Treatment Study (OHTS). Ophthalmology. 2001;108(10):1779–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wygnanski-Jaffe T, Barequet IS. Central corneal thickness in congenital glaucoma. Cornea. 2006;25(8):923–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brandt JD, Casuso LA, Budenz DL. Markedly increased central corneal thickness: an unrecognized finding in congenital aniridia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137(2):348–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muir KW, Duncan L, Enyedi LB, Wallace DK, Freedman SF. Central corneal thickness: congenital cataracts and aphakia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144(4):502–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Law SK, Bui D, Caprioli J. Serial axial length measurements in congenital glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;132(6):926–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sampaolesi R, Caruso R. Ocular echometry in the diagnosis of congenital glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982;100(4):574–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baig NB, Lin AA, Freedman SF. Ultrasound evaluation of glaucoma drainage devices in children. J AAPOS. 2015;19(3):281–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Henry CR, Hodapp E, Hess DJ, Blieden LS, Berrocal AM. Fluorescein angiography findings in phacomatosis pigmentovascularis. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2013;44(2):201–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kageyama M, Hirooka K, Baba T, Shiraga F. Comparison of ICare rebound tonometer with noncontact tonometer in healthy children. J Glaucoma. 2011;20(a):63–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahmoud A. Fayed
    • 1
  • Teresa C. Chen
    • 2
  • Oscar Albis-Donado
    • 3
  • Elena Bitrian
    • 4
  1. 1.Glaucoma Service, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear InfirmaryHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of GlaucomaInstituto Mexicano de Oftalmolgía IAPQuerétaroMexico
  4. 4.Department of OphthalmologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations