• Users Online: 200
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 33  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 394-399

Intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanical changes after water-drinking test in glaucoma patients


1 Department of Ophthalmology, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz; Ophthalmic Research Center, Research Institute for Ophthalmology and Vision Science, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Ophthalmology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Department of Ophthalmology, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
4 Department of Biostatics and Epidemiology, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

Date of Submission15-Jan-2021
Date of Decision27-Sep-2021
Date of Acceptance27-Sep-2021
Date of Web Publication06-Jan-2022

Correspondence Address:
Farideh Sharifipour
Department of Ophthalmology, Research Institute for Ophthalmology and Vision Science, Labbafinejad Medical Center, Boostan 9th St., Pasdaran Ave, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/joco.joco_19_21

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Purpose: To evaluate intraocular pressure (IOP) and corneal biomechanical changes after water-drinking test (WDT) in glaucomatous and normal eyes using Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA).
Methods: This prospective study included 30 medically controlled, 30 surgically treated glaucoma patients and 30 normal individuals. Baseline measurements included central corneal thickness (CCT), ORA-derived corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc), and Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg). Measurements were repeated 15, 30, and 60 min after drinking 1000 mL of water. Changes in ORA parameters were compared among the groups.
Results: All groups showed a significant increase in IOPg and IOPcc at all test points. Peak IOP occurred at 15 min and decreased gradually over time but did not reach the baseline values at 60 min. The surgery group had significantly lower baseline IOPg and IOPcc (10.7 ± 3.1 and 12.8 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.001 and 0.01), lower peak IOPg and IOPcc (14.4 ± 4.6 and 16.2 ± 4.6 mmHg, P = 0.003 and 0.034), and lower percent IOPg and IOPcc fluctuations (13 ± 5.6 and 15 ± 5.9, P = 0.0001 and 0.002), respectively, compared to the medical group. Baseline CH and its fluctuations were not significantly different among the groups. CH decreased to a trough corresponding to peak IOPcc. There was a significant negative correlation between IOPcc and CH (r = −0.609, P < 0.001). The medical group showed more CRF fluctuations compared to normal group.(P = 0.039).
Conclusion: Surgically treated glaucomatous eyes show less IOP fluctuations and lower peak IOP after WDT compared to medically controlled and normal eyes.

Keywords: Glaucoma, Intraocular pressure, Ocular Response Analyzer, Water-drinking test


How to cite this article:
Sharifipour F, Malekahmadi M, Azimi M, Cheraghian B. Intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanical changes after water-drinking test in glaucoma patients. J Curr Ophthalmol 2021;33:394-9

How to cite this URL:
Sharifipour F, Malekahmadi M, Azimi M, Cheraghian B. Intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanical changes after water-drinking test in glaucoma patients. J Curr Ophthalmol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Jan 17];33:394-9. Available from: http://www.jcurrophthalmol.org/text.asp?2021/33/4/394/335027




  Introduction Top


Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) remains the major risk factor for glaucoma progression.[1] Glaucoma may progress in patients with apparently controlled IOPs due to large IOP fluctuations[2],[3] or IOP peaks outside office hours.[4],[5],[6] Diurnal IOP measurement may not represent true IOP fluctuation,[7],[8] misses overnight IOP peaks, and is time-consuming.

Water-drinking test (WDT) is a provocative test indirectly evaluating the outflow system of the eye.[9] IOP peaks detected during WDT could predict future progression of glaucoma[10],[11],[12] and correlate significantly with IOP peak on 24-h IOP measurements.[13],[14],[15] This study aimed to evaluate IOP changes in glaucoma patients after WDT.


  Methods Top


This prospective case–control study was performed at a tertiary eye center. The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee (Ethics approval code: AJUMS.REC.1393.243) and adhered to the tenets of Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all patients.

This study included 90 eyes (90 individuals) including 30 medically-controlled, 30 surgically treated glaucoma patients, and 30 normal individuals. Glaucoma patients aged 40–80 years with a diagnosis of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) were enrolled in this study. The patients had medically or surgically (trabeculectomy) controlled glaucoma with IOP between 5 and 20 mmHg. All patients in the medical group were receiving prostaglandin analog (PGA) latanoprost 0.005% (Lataprost, Sina Darou, Tehran, Iran) every evening and timolol maleate 0.5%/dorzolamide 2% fixed combination (Zilomole, Sina Darou, Tehran, Iran) two times daily. The surgical group had functional blebs and controlled IOP without antiglaucoma medications. Normal subjects were recruited from spouses and friends of patients and had open angles, corrected vision of 20/25 or better, and normal eye examinations.

Exclusion criteria were uncontrolled IOP, previous ocular surgery other than trabeculectomy (e.g., shunt, cataract, LASIK), hyperopia (>+2 D) and myopia (<−4 D), only eye status, any current ocular infection or inflammation, corneal abnormality or opacity, pregnancy, diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension, and heart or renal failure.

The Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) (Reichert Inc., Depew, New York) is an air puff tonometer that measures the corneal response to a steady air pulse. It makes two applanation measurements: a force-in applanation which has been attributed to the dampening effects of the cornea and a force-out applanation that occurs at a lower pressure than the initial values. The difference between the two pressures is corneal hysteresis (CH) and indicates viscous properties of the cornea, whereas corneal resistance factor (CRF) shows the elastic properties of the cornea. The instrument measures CH and CRF as the markers of corneal viscoelastic properties as well as corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc), and Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg).[16]

Baseline measurements included central corneal thickness (CCT) with an ultrasound pachymeter (Tomey, Tomey Corp, Nagoya, Japan), and CH, CRF, IOPcc, and IOPg with the ORA. Then, the patients drank 1000 ml of water in 15 min, and the measurements were repeated 15, 30, and 60 min after water loading. Four ORA measurements were performed at each test time, and among the three closest readings, the one with the highest waveform score was used for analyses.

Statistical analysis

We used a comparison of two means formula to calculate the sample size with a two-sided test with a 1% level of significance at a power of 90%, in agreement with the study performed by Danesh-Meyer et al.[17] A sample size of 23 patients per group was obtained.

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 13) (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA). To compare the baseline values, we used one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data were presented as the mean ± standard deviation. All analyses were adjusted for age and baseline IOP and number of medications. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare fluctuations in the ORA parameters among the study groups. Fluctuations of IOPg, IOPcc, CH, and CRF were calculated by subtracting the baseline values from the peaks of these parameters during the test. To calculate percent IOP fluctuation, IOPg and IOPcc fluctuations were divided by baseline values multiplied by 100. Two-by-two comparisons were performed using Tukey's test. Correlations among ORA parameters and with CCT were also investigated using Pearson's correlation coefficient. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


  Results Top


Overall, 90 individuals including 30 medically controlled glaucoma patients, 30 surgically treated glaucoma patients and 30 normal individuals were enrolled in this study. [Table 1] shows demographic data and baseline characteristics in the study groups.
Table 1: Demographic data and ocular parameters before water-drinking test in glaucoma patients and normal individuals

Click here to view


The medical group was older (59.4 ± 11.3 years) than the other groups (P = 0.015). The groups were not different in terms of gender and CCT. The surgery group had significantly lower baseline IOPg and IOPcc compared to the medical and control groups (P = 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). All analyses were adjusted for age, baseline IOP, and number of medications.

[Table 2] and [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4] show changes in the study parameters during the test. All groups showed a significant increase in IOPg and IOPcc at all time points. Peak IOP occurred 15 min after water loading and decreased gradually over time. However, it did not reach the baseline values after 60 min. After water loading, peaks of IOPg and IOPcc were significantly lower in the surgery group compared to the medical group [P = 0.003 and 0.034, respectively, [Figure 1] and [Figure 2]]. IOPg and IOPcc fluctuations in the surgery group were lower than the medical group, although the difference did not reach the statistical significance level (P = 0.253 and 0.304, respectively). However, percent IOPg and IOPcc fluctuations were significantly lower in the surgery group compared to the medical group (13 ± 5.6 and 15 ± 5.9, P = 0.0001 and 0.002, respectively, [Table 2]]. IOPcc and IOPg were significantly correlated in all groups (r = 0.877, P < 0.001).
Table 2: Ocular response analyzer parameters' changes after water-drinking test in glaucoma patients and normal individuals

Click here to view
Figure 1: Changes in Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (IOPg) after water-drinking test in medically controlled and surgically treated glaucoma eyes and normal individuals. Peak IOPg occurred 15 min after water loading

Click here to view
Figure 2: Changes in corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc) after water-drinking test in medically controlled and surgically treated glaucoma eyes and normal individuals. Peak IOPcc occurred at 15 min

Click here to view
Figure 3: Changes in corneal hysteresis (CH) after water-drinking test in medically controlled and surgically treated glaucoma eyes and normal individuals. CH decreased to a trough at 15 min, corresponding to the Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure and corneal-compensated intraocular pressure peaks

Click here to view
Figure 4: Changes in corneal resistance factor after water-drinking test

Click here to view


CH and CRF changed significantly after WDT. CH decreased to a trough as IOPcc and IOPg increased to the peak and then increased to a level less than baseline at 60 min [Figure 3]. CRF increased after water loading with a subsequent decrease to a level higher than baseline [Figure 4]. Peak CRF was significantly lower in the surgery group compared to the medical and control groups (P < 0.001 and 0.036, respectively). CRF fluctuation was significantly higher in the medical group compared to the normal group [P = 0.039, [Table 2]]. There was a significant correlation between IOPcc and CH (r = −0.609, P < 0.001), and IOPg and CRF (r = 0.506 P < 0.001). Correlations between IOPcc and CRF and between IOPg and CH were not significant. Neither IOPcc nor IOPg correlated with CCT. CH and CRF had significant weak correlation with CCT (r = 0.288, P = 0.007 and 0.229, P = 0.03, respectively).


  Discussion Top


This study showed that the peaks of IOPg and IOPcc after WDT were significantly lower in surgically treated as compared to medically treated glaucoma patients. In addition, IOP fluctuation in the surgical group was less than in the medical group.

Glaucoma progression may occur in patients with apparently controlled IOP. This has been attributed to IOP fluctuations outside office hours.[4],[5],[6] In addition, studies have shown that peak IOP may be a better predictor than IOP fluctuation for glaucoma progression.[10],[11],[12] By 24-h IOP evaluation, Barkana et al. showed IOP peaks occurring in 62% of their patients outside office hours, which resulted in treatment change in 36% of the patients.[4] While a 24-h diurnal tension curve (DTC) may be the best way to evaluate IOP profile, peak, and fluctuations, due to its limitations for both the patients and the physicians, it is not feasible in routine practice. An alternative method to assess 24-h IOP fluctuations is a special contact lens (Sensimed Triggerfish contact lens sensor (CLS) which provides data on relative changes in IOP rather than absolute IOP.[18] In recent years, WDT has been proposed as a reasonable surrogate for 24-h DTC to measure IOP peak and fluctuation.[13],[14],[15]

Several studies have shown a significant correlation of IOP peaks detected during the WDT with 24-h DTC,[13],[14],[15] as well as with the severity and progression of glaucoma.[10],[11],[12]

Most studies comparing IOP fluctuation in medically and surgically controlled glaucomatous eyes have revealed that surgery results in fewer IOP fluctuations and peaks.[15],[17],[19],[20],[21] This might be beneficial to glaucoma patients, especially in advanced stages of the disease.

In a study by Danesh-Meyer et al., IOP changes were evaluated after WDT in glaucoma patients using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). They observed significantly lower peak IOP in the surgical group (11.7 ± 2.6 mmHg) compared to the medical group (17.3 ± 2.7 mmHg).[17] We used ORA to measure IOP and corneal biomechanical factors and observed lower IOPg and IOPcc in the surgical group [Table 2]. Corneal biomechanical factors have been investigated in glaucoma patients. Some studies have found lower CH in glaucoma patients and consider it a risk factor for glaucoma progression.[22],[23],[24],[25]

Corneal biomechanics is affected by several factors including age, gender, IOP, CCT, antiglaucoma medications, especially PGA, corneal pathologies such as keratoconus and Fuchs endothelial dystrophy, type of glaucoma surgery, and diabetes.[26],[27] We excluded patients with corneal pathologies and diabetes. In our study, there was a statistically significant difference in terms of age, baseline IOP, and number of glaucoma medications among the study groups for which all analyses were adjusted. In addition, we compared both absolute and percent IOP changes among the groups. All patients in medically treated eyes were receiving PGA which might affect corneal biomechanics. Surgically treated eyes had undergone the same type of surgery (trabeculectomy). However, baseline CH and CRF were not significantly different among the groups. Therefore, the net effects of confounding factors such as glaucoma medications on corneal biomechanics could be negligible.

CH and CRF changed significantly after WDT. While CH changes after WDT were not significantly different among the groups, CRF changes in the medical group were significantly higher than the control group (P = 0.039). We observed a significant negative correlation between IOPcc and CH. Since the only factor that changed over the 1-h study period was IOP, corneal biomechanical changes could be attributed mainly to IOP changes during WDT.

Ayala measured corneal biomechanical factors in glaucomatous eyes and healthy subjects using ORA. In their study, CH was significantly lower in pseudoexfoliative patients (8.0 ± 1.5 mmHg) compared to POAG patients (9.0 ± 1.9 mmHg) and normal individuals (9.8 ± 1.6 mmHg), but the difference between the POAG and the normal group was not significant.[22]

Streho et al. evaluated corneal biomechanical factors in healthy subjects, POAG, and ocular hypertension patients using ORA. They showed that CH in glaucoma patients (9.8 mmHg) is less than healthy subjects (10.3 mmHg); however, after adjusting for age, there was no difference among the groups.[26] Ulaş et al. evaluated IOPcc and CH changes in young healthy subjects after WDT. IOPcc increased significantly 10 min after water loading (P = 0.002) and then decreased between 10 and 30 min (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant changes in CH. In addition, there was a weak negative correlation between IOPcc and CH measurements. They concluded that IOP changes might alter corneal biomechanical properties.[28]

In our study, baseline CH and its changes during WDT were not significantly different among the groups. However, peak CRF was significantly lower in surgical group compared to medical and normal groups. In addition, CRF fluctuation in medical group was significantly higher than normal individuals (P = 0.039). We found a significant correlation between IOPcc and CH (r = -0.609, P < 0.001), indicating that by increasing 1 mmHg of IOPcc, CH decreases by 0.609 mmHg, and thus, part of lower CH observed in glaucoma patients might be explained by higher IOP.

A major drawback to IOP measurement is that different devices are more or less affected by CCT and corneal biomechanical properties.

In a study by Furlanetto et al., the correlation between CCT and IOP readings by GAT was investigated in glaucoma patients after WDT. No relevant correlation was detected between CCT and the IOP peak or fluctuation.[29] We observed no significant correlation between CCT and IOPg or IOPcc either.

Razeghinejad et al. studied the effect of shunt or trabeculectomy surgery on changes in IOP after WDT.[30] In the trabeculectomy group, the average IOP increased from 14.8 ± 2.9 to 18.8 ± 4.7 mmHg at 30 min but decreased at 60 min (18.0 ± 5.2 mmHg). In the tube group, IOP increased continuously until the last measurement (14.2 ± 3.9, 18.8 ± 5.6, and 19.7 ± 6.0 mmHg at baseline, 30, and 60 min, respectively), and IOP did not reach the baseline values at 60 min. In our study, peak IOP occurred 15 min after water loading and decreased afterwards but did not reach the baseline values at 60 min in none of the groups. CH showed a trough at 15 min, corresponding to peak IOP, indicating the negative correlation between IOPcc and CH.

In our study, eyes with prior trabeculectomy showed lower peak IOPs and IOP fluctuation after WDT as compared to medically controlled and normal eyes. Although this might be in part due to lower baseline IOPs in this group, percent IOP fluctuation was significantly lower in surgery group compared to the medical group indicating truly less IOP fluctuation in surgically treated eyes. Therefore, it may be logical to recommend surgery to patients with advanced glaucoma to lower IOP peak and fluctuation to prevent further disease progression.

The major shortcoming of our study was stopping measurements before baseline IOP was reached. The time interval to reach the baseline IOP might be different among the groups. Furthermore, the mean age was different between the groups although it was statistically addressed for analyses.

In summary, we observed that after WDT, surgically treated glaucoma eyes have a better IOP profile in terms of peak and absolute and percent IOP fluctuation compared to medically treated eyes.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was supported by Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences.

This work was presented in part at the XXV Annual Congress of Iranian Society of Ophthalmology, December 2015.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. The AGIS Investigators. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;130:429-40.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J, Gieser D, Vitale S, Lindenmuth K. Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2000;9:134-42.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Caprioli J, Coleman AL. Intraocular pressure fluctuation a risk factor for visual field progression at low intraocular pressures in the advanced glaucoma intervention study. Ophthalmology 2008;115:1123-9.e3.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Barkana Y, Anis S, Liebmann J, Tello C, Ritch R. Clinical utility of intraocular pressure monitoring outside of normal office hours in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:793-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Konstas AG, Quaranta L, Mikropoulos DG, Nasr MB, Russo A, Jaffee HA, et al. Peak intraocular pressure and glaucomatous progression in primary open-angle glaucoma. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2012;28:26-32.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
De Moraes CG, Juthani VJ, Liebmann JM, Teng CC, Tello C, Susanna R Jr., et al. Risk factors for visual field progression in treated glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2011;129:562-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Xu S, Jiao Q, Cheng Y, Sun J, Lu Q, Zhong Y. Short-term reproducibility of twenty-four-hour intraocular pressure curves in untreated patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. PLoS One 2015;10:e0140206.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Song YK, Lee CK, Kim J, Hong S, Kim CY, Seong GJ. Instability of 24-hour intraocular pressure fluctuation in healthy young subjects: A prospective, cross-sectional study. BMC Ophthalmol 2014;14:127.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Susanna R Jr., Clement C, Goldberg I, Hatanaka M. Applications of the water drinking test in glaucoma management. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2017;45:625-31.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Susanna R Jr., Vessani RM, Sakata L, Zacarias LC, Hatanaka M. The relation between intraocular pressure peak in the water drinking test and visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:1298-301.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
De Moraes CG, Susanna R Jr., Sakata LM, Hatanaka M. Predictive value of the water drinking test and the risk of glaucomatous visual field progression. J Glaucoma 2017;26:767-73.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Yoshikawa K, Inoue T, Inoue Y. Normal tension glaucoma: The value of predictive tests. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1993;71:463-70.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Vasconcelos-Moraes CG, Susanna R Jr. Correlation between the water drinking test and modified diurnal tension curve in untreated glaucomatous eyes. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2008;63:433-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Kumar RS, de Guzman MH, Ong PY, Goldberg I. Does peak intraocular pressure measured by water drinking test reflect peak circadian levels? A pilot study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008;36:312-5.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Li T, Hao Y, Zhu Y. Clinical study of water drinking test and 24-hour intraocular pressure monitoring in patients with primary open angle glaucoma. Pak J Pharm Sci 2017;30:1461-5.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:156-62.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Danesh-Meyer HV, Papchenko T, Tan YW, Gamble GD. Medically controlled glaucoma patients show greater increase in intraocular pressure than surgically controlled patients with the water drinking test. Ophthalmology 2008;115:1566-70.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Dunbar GE, Shen BY, Aref AA. The Sensimed Triggerfish contact lens sensor: Efficacy, safety, and patient perspectives. Clin Ophthalmol 2017;11:875-82.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Migdal C, Gregory W, Hitchings R. Long-term functional outcome after early surgery compared with laser and medicine in open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1994;101:1651-6.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Niziol LM, Cashwell LF, Lichter PR. Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study Group. Factors associated with intraocular pressure before and during 9 years of treatment in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study. Ophthalmology 2008;115:927-33.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Salcedo H, Arciniega D, Mayorga M, Wu L. Role of the water-drinking test in medically treated primary open angle glaucoma patients. J Fr Ophtalmol 2018;41:421-4.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Ayala M. Corneal hysteresis in normal subjects and in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma. Ophthalmic Res 2011;46:187-91.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Carbonaro F, Hysi PG, Fahy SJ, Nag A, Hammond CJ. Optic disc planimetry, corneal hysteresis, central corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure as risk factors for glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2014;157:441-6.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Medeiros FA, Meira-Freitas D, Lisboa R, Kuang TM, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN. Corneal hysteresis as a risk factor for glaucoma progression: A prospective longitudinal study. Ophthalmology 2013;120:1533-40.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Anand A, De Moraes CG, Teng CC, Tello C, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Corneal hysteresis and visual field asymmetry in open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:6514-8.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Streho M, Dariel R, Giraud J, Verret C, Fenolland J, Crochelet O, et al. Evaluation of the ocular response analyzer in ocular hypertension, glaucoma, and normal populations. Prospective study on 329 eyes. J Fr Ophthalmol 2008;31:953-60.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Meda R, Wang Q, Paoloni D, Harasymowycz P, Brunette I. The impact of chronic use of prostaglandin analogues on the biomechanical properties of the cornea in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2017;101:120-5.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Ulaş F, Balbaba M, Celebi S. Effects of a water-loading test on intraocular pressure and corneal hysteresis in young healthy subjects. J Glaucoma 2014;23:101-4.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Furlanetto RL, Facio AC Jr., Hatanaka M, Susanna Junior R. Correlation between central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure peak and fluctuation during the water drinking test in glaucoma patients. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2010;65:967-70.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Razeghinejad MR, Tajbakhsh Z, Nowroozzadeh MH, Masoumpour M. Water drinking test: Intraocular pressure changes after tube surgery and trabeculectomy. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2017;12:390-6.  Back to cited text no. 30
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed269    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded34    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]