Karmiris Efthymios, Tsiripidis Konstantinos, Gartaganis Panos S, Totou Styliani, Vasilopoulou Maria-Giannoula, Patelis Andreas, Giannakis Ioannis, Chalkiadaki Evangelia
Department of Ophthalmology, 251 Hellenic Airforce General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021 Dec 27:11206721211069227. doi: 10.1177/11206721211069227.
To assess the agreement among four types of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements: IOP obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometer (IOP-GAT),IOP obtained by an air-puff tonometer (Nidek NT-510)(IOP-NCT), the non-corrected IOP obtained by the Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (IOP-Corvis) and the biomechanically corrected IOP obtained by the Corvis ST (bIOP-Corvis) in healthy patients with a broad spectrum of IOP values. This prospective, observational study recruited 113 healthy individuals. Each patient underwent IOP evaluation via GAT, Nidek NT-510 and Corvis ST. Difference in mean in IOP readings was assessed by one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).Tonometer intermethod agreement was assessed by the Bland-Altman method. The difference between the four IOP measurements was correlated against corneal (CCT) and age with Pearson's correlation test. IOP-Corvis showed the highest values (16.59 ± 3.08 mmHg),followed by IOP-NCT (16.05 ± 3.43 mmHg), IOP-GAT (15.62 ± 3.08 mmHg) and bIOP-Corvis (15.10 ± 2.67 mmHg).There were statistically significant differences in IOP measurements among all the ANOVA pairwise comparisons except between IOP-GAT and bIOP-Corvis ( = 0.07),as well as between IOP-GAT and IOP-NCT ( = 0.25). Bland Altman analysis revealed a notable bias (all < 0.05) among IOP-GAT and bIOP-Corvis, IOP-GAT and IOP-Corvis, IOP-GAT and IOP-NCT, bIOP-Corvis and IOP-Corvis, bIOP-Corvis and IOP-NCT,IOP-Corvis and IOP-NCT of 0.51, -0.97, -0.43, -1.49, -0.95, 0.53 mmHg respectively. We observed a strong correlation of the difference between bIOP-Corvis and IOP-Corvis with CCT and patient age. Compared with GAT and Nidek NT-510, the Corvis-derived IOPs were recorded either the highest as IOP-Corvis or the lowest as bIOP-Corvis. Even if the differences among the tonometers were relatively small, the IOP values obtained with the Corvis ST, NCT and GAT were not interchangeable.
评估四种眼压(IOP)测量方法之间的一致性:通过Goldmann压平眼压计获得的眼压(IOP-GAT)、通过气吹眼压计(Nidek NT-510)获得的眼压(IOP-NCT)、通过角膜可视化Scheimpflug技术获得的未校正眼压(IOP-Corvis)以及通过Corvis ST获得的生物力学校正眼压(bIOP-Corvis),研究对象为眼压值范围广泛的健康患者。这项前瞻性观察性研究招募了113名健康个体。每位患者均通过GAT、Nidek NT-510和Corvis ST进行眼压评估。通过单向重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)评估眼压读数的平均差异。采用Bland-Altman方法评估眼压计测量方法之间的一致性。通过Pearson相关检验评估四种眼压测量值之间的差异与角膜厚度(CCT)和年龄的相关性。IOP-Corvis显示出最高值(16.59±3.08 mmHg),其次是IOP-NCT(16.05±3.43 mmHg)、IOP-GAT(15.62±3.08 mmHg)和bIOP-Corvis(15.10±2.67 mmHg)。除了IOP-GAT和bIOP-Corvis之间(P = 0.07)以及IOP-GAT和IOP-NCT之间(P = 0.25)外,所有ANOVA两两比较的眼压测量值均存在统计学显著差异。Bland Altman分析显示,IOP-GAT和bIOP-Corvis、IOP-GAT和IOP-Corvis、IOP-GAT和IOP-NCT、bIOP-Corvis和IOP-Corvis、bIOP-Corvis和IOP-NCT、IOP-Corvis和IOP-NCT之间分别存在显著偏差(所有P < 0.05),偏差分别为0.51、-0.97、-0.43、-1.49、-0.95、0.53 mmHg。我们观察到bIOP-Corvis和IOP-Corvis之间的差异与CCT和患者年龄密切相关。与GAT和Nidek NT-510相比,Corvis衍生的眼压值要么作为IOP-Corvis记录为最高,要么作为bIOP-Corvis记录为最低。即使眼压计之间的差异相对较小,通过Corvis ST、NCT和GAT获得的确压值也不可互换。