HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response View responses Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Martinez-de-la-Casa, J. M. Articles by Garcia-Sanchez, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Martinez-de-la-Casa, J. M. Articles by Garcia-Sanchez, J.

Ocular Response Analyzer versus Goldmann Applanation Tonometry for Intraocular Pressure Measurements

From the Hospital Clínico San Carlos, and Instituto de Investigaciones Oftalmologicas Ramon Castroviejo, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain

PURPOSE. To establish correlations between intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the ocular response analyzer (ORA) and the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). The effects of central corneal thickness on the measures obtained were also examined.

METHODS. This was a cross-sectional study. IOP was determined in 48 eyes of 48 patients with glaucoma In all patients, central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured by ultrasound pachymetry.

RESULTS. ORA readings were consistently higher than GAT measurements (Goldmann-correlated IOP – IOP GAT mean difference, 7.2 ± 3.5 mm Hg; corneal-compensated IOP – IOP GAT mean difference, 8.3 ± 4.0 mm Hg) However, differences were not constant and increased with increasing IOP GAT readings, both with respect to Goldmann-correlated IOP (slope = 0.623, P < 0.0001) and corneal-compensated IOP (slope = 0.538, P < 0.0001). Both pressure measurements provided by the ORA showed significant correlation with CCT (CCT versus Goldmann-correlated IOP: r = 0.460, P = 0.001; CCT versus corneal-compensated IOP: r = 0.442, P = 0.001). No significant effects of corneal curvature or refraction on any of the pressures were observed.

CONCLUSIONS. The ORA significantly overestimates IOP compared with the GAT. Differences between both sets of measures increase as the GAT-determined IOP increases. ORA readings seem to be affected by central corneal thickness.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Moreno-Montanes, M. J. Maldonado, N. Garcia, L. Mendiluce, P. J. Garcia-Gomez, and M. Segui-Gomez Reproducibility and Clinical Relevance of the Ocular Response Analyzer in Nonoperated Eyes: Corneal Biomechanical and Tonometric Implications Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., March 1, 2008; 49(3): 968 - 974. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters: