Inter-eye IOP measurements differ by tonometer, ‘unlikely’ to affect clinical outcomes
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Key takeaways:
- Goldmann-correlated IOP was higher in the first eye measured, while biomechanically-corrected IOP was higher in the second eye.
- There were also significant inter-eye differences in biomechanical parameters.
Differences in IOP values and biomechanical parameters between the first and second eye measured, as well as by device used, were significant but not likely to affect outcomes in clinical or research settings, according to study results.
“Although statistically significant, the absolute inter-eye differences for both the intraocular pressure values and for the biomechanical parameters were small and are therefore unlikely to have a large impact on clinical decision-making or on research interpretation,” Phillip T. Yuhas, OD, PhD, FAAO, and colleagues at The Ohio State University wrote in Optometry and Vision Science.
Seeking to determine whether IOP and biomechanical parameters differ between the first and second eye measured, researchers used the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and the Cornea Visualization with Scheimpflug Technology (CorVis ST) to collect measurements from 139 healthy participants. The OFA measured corneal-compensated and Goldmann-correlated IOP and corneal hysteresis, while the CorVis ST measured biomechanically-corrected IOP and stiffness parameter at first application and at highest concavity.
According to results, Goldmann-correlated IOP via OFA was significantly higher in the first eye (14.8 mm Hg) than the second (14.3 mm Hg), while biomechanically-corrected IOP using CorVis ST was significantly higher in the second eye (14.7 mm Hg) than the first (14.3 mm Hg). Corneal-compensated IOP did not differ significantly between eyes.
Researchers also reported that stiffness parameter at first application was significantly higher in the first vs. the second eye, with an inter-eye difference of 6.85 mm Hg/mm. Conversely, stiffness parameter at highest concavity was significantly higher in the second eye (14.3 mm Hg) than the first (14 mm Hg).
“Although there were statistically significant inter-eye differences in intraocular pressure and in biomechanical parameters for both devices, the variations were small and thus unlikely to affect clinical outcomes,” Yuhas and colleagues wrote.
Collapse
Read more about
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts