• Users Online: 104
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 33  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 118-123

Tonometry by ocular response analyzer in keratoconic and warpage eyes in comparison with normal eyes


1 Eye Research Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Eye Research Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran; Department of Ophthalmology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Nikookari Eye Hospital, Tabriz, Iran
3 Department of Health Services Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Narges Hassanpoor
Eye Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Qazvin Square, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JOCO.JOCO_147_20

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured by ocular response analyzer (ORA) in contact lens-induced corneal warpage, normal, and keratoconic eyes. Methods: In a prospective, observational case–control study, 94 eyes of 47 warpage-suspected cases and 46 eyes of 23 keratoconic patients were enrolled. Warpage-suspected cases were followed until a definite diagnosis was made (warpage, nonwarpage normal, or keratoconus). ORA tonometry and corneal biomechanics testing were performed for all cases in each visit. We had 2–3 measured corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc) and Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg) for each patient (based on group) with at least 2-week interval. Results: After following up of warpage-suspected patients, finally 44 eyes of 22 patients had confirmed soft contact lens-related corneal warpage. Forty-six eyes of 23 people were finally diagnosed as nonwarpage normal eyes. Forty-six eyes of 23 known keratoconus patients were also included for comparison. The demographic and refractive data were not different between the warpage and nonwarpage normal groups but were different in the keratoconus group. Both IOPcc and IOPg were statistically different with the highest value in the warpage group followed by normal and keratoconus groups; the same trend was observed in central corneal thickness (CCT). The mean of IOPg was 14.94 ± 2.65, 13.7 ± 2.33, and 10.86 ± 3 and IOPcc was 15.73 ± 2.4, 15.28 ± 2.43, and 14.08 ± 2.55 in the warpage, normal, and keratoconus groups, respectively. IOPg and IOPcc in the warpage group (based on baseline diagnosis) did not regress to become closer to IOP of normal eyes after discontinuation of contact lens in their follow-up visits (P value for IOPg and IOPcc trends in the warpage group was 0.07 and 0.09 controlling for CCT, respectively). Both IOPcc and IOPg were significantly lower in keratoconic eyes in comparison with normal eyes. After correction for the confounding effect of CCT, a lower IOPcc in keratoconus versus warpage remained significant (P = 0.02). Conclusion: Both IOPcc and IOPg were statistically different with the highest value in the warpage group followed by normal and keratoconus groups, just like their CCT. After correction for the confounding effect of CCT, there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups in their measured IOPcc and IOPg except for IOPcc in keratoconus versus warpage (P = 0.02).


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1012    
    Printed50    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded94    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal