比较新西兰白兔使用回弹眼压计和压平眼压计以及四种不同物理约束方法测量的眼压。
Comparison of intraocular pressure in New Zealand White rabbits measured using rebound and applanation tonometers and four different methods of physical restraint.
机构信息
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur, Turkey.
出版信息
N Z Vet J. 2023 Sep;71(5):251-258. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2023.2224277. Epub 2023 Jun 26.
AIMS
To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained in rabbits using rebound (TV) and applanation (TPV) tonometers with four different methods of physical restraint.
METHODS
A total of 20 New Zealand White rabbits (40 eyes) were included in this study. IOP readings were obtained from both eyes using the two different tonometers. The rabbits were placed on a table and restrained by wrapping in a cloth (Method I), by scruffing with rear support (Method II), by wrapping in a cloth and cupped in the hands (Method III), or by a box restrainer (Method IV).
RESULTS
The mean IOP measurement obtained by TPV was higher than that obtained with the TV for all handling methods. Mean differences (TV-TPV, in mmHg) in IOP were -5.3 (95% Cl = -6.5 to -4.1) for Method 1, -4.7 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.29) for Method II, -4.9 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.7) for Method III and -7.6 (95% Cl = -9.2 to -5.9) for Method IV. Using the TV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was higher than for Method I (mean difference 2.1 (95% Cl = 1.1-3.1)), whereas using the TPV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was significantly higher than Method I, II, and III (mean differences: 4.4 (95% Cl = 2.6-5.9), 3.7 (95% Cl = 2-5.3) and 3.8 (95% Cl = 2-5.4), respectively). According to Bland-Altman plots, IOP readings for TPV tended to be higher than those for TV with all handling methods, but with a lack of agreement. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement for the differences between TV and TPV were -5.4 mmHg (-12.5-1.9 mmHg), -4.7 mmHg (-12.9-3.5 mmHg), -4.9 mmHg (-12-2.2 mmHg), and -7.5 mmHg (-17.4-2.3 mmHg), with Methods I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Comparing TV and TPV, only 7.5%, 12.5%, 27.5%, and 15% of IOP measurements from 20 rabbits were within the range considered clinically acceptable for IOP (± 2 mmHg) for Method I, II, III, and IV, respectively.
CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
In conclusion, the physical restraint method should be recorded when IOP is measured in rabbits, and TV and TPV tonometers cannot be used interchangeably (high bias and low proportion of measurements within ± 2 mmHg).
目的
比较使用回弹（TV）和压平（TPV）眼压计在四种不同的物理约束方法下测量新西兰白兔的眼压（IOP）。
方法
本研究共纳入 20 只新西兰白兔（40 只眼）。使用两种不同的眼压计从双眼获得 IOP 读数。将兔子放在桌子上，用布包裹（方法 I）、用后支撑抓挠（方法 II）、用布包裹并在手中握住（方法 III）或用盒子固定器（方法 IV）进行约束。
结果
对于所有处理方法，TPV 测量的平均 IOP 均高于 TV 测量的平均 IOP。IOP 的平均差异（TV-TPV，mmHg）分别为方法 1 为-5.3（95%Cl = -6.5 至-4.1），方法 II 为-4.7（95%Cl = -6.2 至-3.29），方法 III 为-4.9（95%Cl = -6.2 至-3.7），方法 IV 为-7.6（95%Cl = -9.2 至-5.9）。使用 TV 眼压计，方法 IV 的平均 IOP 高于方法 I（平均差异 2.1（95%Cl = 1.1-3.1）），而使用 TPV 眼压计，方法 IV 的平均 IOP 显著高于方法 I、II 和 III（平均差异：4.4（95%Cl = 2.6-5.9），3.7（95%Cl = 2-5.3）和 3.8（95%Cl = 2-5.4））。根据 Bland-Altman 图，使用所有处理方法时，TPV 的 IOP 读数均高于 TV，但一致性不足。TV 和 TPV 之间差异的平均差值和 95%一致性界限分别为-5.4mmHg（-12.5-1.9mmHg）、-4.7mmHg（-12.9-3.5mmHg）、-4.9mmHg（-12-2.2mmHg）和-7.5mmHg（-17.4-2.3mmHg），分别对应方法 I、II、III 和 IV。比较 TV 和 TPV，仅分别有 7.5%、12.5%、27.5%和 15%的 20 只兔子的 IOP 测量值在方法 I、II、III 和 IV 的临床可接受范围内（±2mmHg）。
结论和临床意义
综上所述，在测量兔子的眼压时应记录物理约束方法，并且不能将 TV 和 TPV 眼压计互换使用（存在较大偏差，并且在±2mmHg 范围内的测量值比例较低）。
Zotero 插件