iCare iC100与Corvis ST测量眼压的重复性和一致性比较

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20210222-00069

摘要
图/表
参考文献(20)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF 918KB HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS) 背景资料

文章导读

摘要

目的：比较iCare iC100回弹式眼压计（iC100）和Corvis ST角膜生物力学分析仪（CST）测量眼压的重

复性和一致性，分析iC100测量的眼压与角膜生物力学特性的关系。方法：系列病例研究。本研究

于2020年6─10月在沈阳爱尔眼视光医院职工或白内障患者中招募志愿者50例（50眼），其中健康

眼23例（23眼），白内障患者27例（27眼）。分别使用CST、iC100和Goldmann压平眼压计（GAT）测量

眼压，每只眼睛连续测量3次，各眼压计测量眼压值分别记为bIOP、IOPiC100和IOPGAT。角膜生物力

学特征参数和中央角膜厚度（CCT）采用CST进行测量。使用组内相关系数（ICC）评价眼压计的重

复性；使用单因素方差分析及Bland-Altman分析比较眼压计的一致性；使用Pearson相关系数及简单

线性回归分析各眼压计与CCT的关系，使用Pearson相关系数或非参数Spearman分析角膜生物力学

参数与3种眼压计测量值的关系，使用多重线性回归分析iC100测量值与角膜生物力学特性的关系。

结果：bIOP、IOPGAT和IOPiC100分别为（14.79±1.73）、（14.46±2.00）、（14.18±2.80）mmHg，三者差异无

统计学意义。CST、GAT和iC100的眼压测量值可重复性较好（ICC=0.729、0.973、0.923，P<0.001）。

Bland-Altman分析表明，IOPiC100和bIOP、IOPGAT和IOPiC100、IOPGAT和bIOP之间具有良好的一致性。

IOPGAT、IOPiC100与CCT均存在正相关关系（R2 =0.122，P=0.013；R2 =0.183，P=0.002），bIOP与CCT无

相关性。bIOP、IOPGAT与IOPiC100均与第1次压平时间（TA1）、第1次压平时的硬度参数（SP-A1）、第

2次压平长度（LA2）、第2次压平速度（VA2）呈正相关（均P<0.05）；与第1次压平速度（VA1）、第2次

压平时间（TA2）、最大压陷时的变形幅度（HC-DA）、形变比例（DAR）、综合半径（IR）呈负相关（均

P<0.05）；与最大压陷的时间（HC-time）不相关。多元线性回归模型具有统计学意义（F=26.177，

P<0.001，调整R2 =0.507），纳入模型的2个自变量DAR、TA2对IOPiC100的影响均有统计学意义（t=-4.341，P<0.001；

t=-2.080，P=0.043）。结论：iC100的眼压测量值重复性良好，与GAT及Corvis ST眼压测量

值之间的一致性良好，并且受CCT影响。但与CCT相比，角膜生物力学特性对iC100的眼压测量值

影响更大。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	郑伊苹1
	2 赵平2 刘瑞1
	2 彭悦1
	2

关键词 ：

眼压, 回弹式眼压计, 角膜生物力学特性, 重复性, 一致性

Abstract：Objective: To analyze the repeatability of the iCare iC100 rebound tonometer (iC100) and the corneal visualization Scheimpflug technology (CST), to evaluate the consistency of the results of CST, iC100and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), and to analyze the relationship between iC100 tonometer and corneal biomechanical properties. Methods: This was a case series study that involved 50 healthy volunteers (50 eyes) in Shenyang Aier Eye Hospital from June to October 2020. iC100 and GAT were used to measure IOP, and each eye was measured three times. Corneal biomechanical parameters, central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal biomechanical corrected intraocular pressure (bIOP) were obtained by CST. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the repeatability of the three tonometers. The consistency of the tonometers was described by Bland-Altman analysis and one-way ANOVA. Pearson correlation coefficient and simple linear regression were used to analyze the relationship between each tonometer and CCT. Pearson correlation coefficient or nonparametric Spearman analysis was used to analyze the relationship between corneal biomechanical parameters and the three IOP measurment results, a multivariate linear regression analysis was used to analyze the relationship between iC100 and corneal biomechanical properties. Results: All tonometers showed similar IOP results (bIOP: 14.79±1.73 mmHg; IOPGAT: 14.46±2.00 mmHg; IOPiC100: 14.18±2.80 mmHg). The IOP measurements of Corvis ST, iC100 and GAT were reproducible (ICC=0.729, 0.973, 0.923, P<0.001). Bland-Altman analysis showed that there was good consistency between IOPiC100 and bIOP, IOPiC100 and IOPGAT, bIOP and IOPGAT. With the exception of bIOP, IOPGAT and IOPiC100 were both affected by CCT (R2 =0.122, P=0.013; R2 =0.183, P=0.002, respectively). The IOP measurements of CST, GAT and iC100 were positively correlated with the first applanation length (TA1), stiffness parameter at first applanation (SP-A1), second applanation length (LA2), and second applanation velocity (VA2) (P<0.05). IOP measurements were negatively correlated with the first applanation velocity (VA1), second applanation time (TA2), deformation amplitude of the highest concavity (HC-DA), deformation amplitude ratio (DAR), and integrated radius (IR) (P<0.05). IOP measurements were not related to the time of highest concavity (HC-time). A multiple linear regression model was statistically significant (F=26.177, P<0.001, adjusted R2 =0.507), and the effects of DAR and TA2 included in the model on IOPiC100 were both statistically significant (t=-4.341, P<0.001; t=-2.080, P=0.043). Conclusions: The IOP measurement of iC100 has good repeatability and good consistency with that of GAT and Corvis ST and was affected by CCT. But compared with CCT, corneal biomechanical properties have a greater impact on the IOP measurement of iC100.

Key words： intraocular pressure rebound tonometer corneal biomechanical properties repeatability consistency

收稿日期: 2021-02-22

PACS:

基金资助:

通讯作者: 赵平（ORCID：0000-0002-0303-1887），Email：zp2k@vip.163.com

引用本文:

郑伊苹1，2 赵平2 刘瑞1，2 彭悦1，2. iCare iC100与Corvis ST测量眼压的重复性和一致性比较[J]. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2021, 23(10): 745-751.

链接本文:

https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20210222-00069 或 https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/Y2021/V23/I10/745

[1]	Dielemans I, Vingerling JR, Hofman A, et al. Reliability of intraocular pressure measurement with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in epidemiological studies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 1994, 232(3): 141-144. DOI: 10.1007/ BF00176782.
[2]	Zakrzewska A, Wi?cek MP, Machalińska A. Impact of corneal parameters on intraocular pressure measurements in different tonometry methods. Int J Ophthalmol, 2019, 12(12): 1853-1858. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2019.12.06.
[3]	Bao F, Huang Z, Huang J, et al. Clinical evaluation of methods to correct intraocular pressure measurements by the goldmann applanation tonometer, ocular response analyzer, and Corvis ST tonometer for the effects of corneal stiffness parameters. J Glaucoma, 2016, 25(6): 510-519. DOI: 10.1097/ IJG.0000000000000359.
[4]	Molero-Senosiaín M, Morales-Fernández L, Saenz-Francés F, et al. Analysis of reproducibility, evaluation, and preference of the new iC100 rebound tonometer versus iCare PRO and Perkins portable applanation tonometry. Eur J Ophthalmol, 2020, 30(6): 1349-1355. DOI: 10.1177/1120672119878017.
[5]	Li Y, Carpenter CR, Nicholson K, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the iCare rebound tonometer compared to the Perkins applanation tonometer in assessing intraocular pressure in rural patients. Diagnosis (Berl), 2015, 2(4): 227-234. DOI: 10.1515/ dx-2015-0026.
[6]	谭娟, 赵平, 刘瑞, 等. iCare HOME眼压计测量眼压的准确性评估. 眼科, 2018, 27(4): 286-290. DOI: 10.13281/j.cnki. issn.1004-4469.2018.04.009.
[7]	刘瑞, 赵平, 谭娟, 等. 药物治疗中的青光眼患者自我监测24小时眼压的临床效果. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2020, 22(1): 20-26. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2020.01.004.
[8]	彭悦, 赵平, 谭娟, 等. 他氟前列素对原发性开角型青光眼和高眼压症患者24 小时眼压的影响. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2020, 22(1): 27-31. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674- 845X.2020.01.005.
[9]	Jose J, Ve RS, Pai HV, et al. Agreement and repeatability of Icare ic100 tonometer. Indian J Ophthalmol, 2020, 68(10): 2122- 2125. DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_546_19.
[10]	Lam A, Chen D, Chiu R, et al. Comparison of IOP measurements between ORA and GAT in normal Chinese. Optom Vis Sci, 2007, 84(9): 909-914. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181559db2.
[11]	Yu AY, Duan SF, Zhao YE, et al. Correlation between corneal biomechanical properties, applanation tonometry and direct intracameral tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol, 2012, 96(5): 640-644. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300124.
[12]	Sánchez Pavón I, Cañadas P, Martin R. Repeatability and agreement of intraocular pressure measurement among three tonometers. Clin Exp Optom, 2020, 103(6): 808-812. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.13043.
[13]	Reznicek L, Muth D, Kampik A, et al. Evaluation of a novel Scheimpflug-based non-contact tonometer in healthy subjects and patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol, 2013, 97(11): 1410-1414. DOI: 10.1136/ bjophthalmol-2013-303400.
[14]	Carbonaro F, Andrew T, Mackey DA, et al. Comparison of three methods of intraocular pressure measurement and their relation to central corneal thickness. Eye (Lond), 2010, 24(7): 1165- 1170. DOI: 10.1038/eye.2010.11
[15]	Smedowski A, Weglarz B, Tarnawska D, et al. Comparison of three intraocular pressure measurement methods including biomechanical properties of the cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2014, 55(2): 666-673. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.13-13172.
[16]	钱朝旭, 黄永健. Corvis ST测量青光眼患者眼压及中央角膜厚度的准确性研究. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2017, 19(6): 345-349. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2017.06. 006.
[17]	Matsuura M, Murata H, Fujino Y, et al. Relationship between novel intraocular pressure measurement from Corvis ST and central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis. Br J Ophthalmol, 2020, 104(4): 563-568. DOI: 10.1136/ bjophthalmol-2019-314370.
[18]	Jorge JM, González-Méijome JM, Queirós A, et al. Correlations between corneal biomechanical properties measured with the ocular response analyzer and ICare rebound tonometry. J Glaucoma, 2008, 17(6): 442-448. DOI: 10.1097/IJG. 0b013e31815f52b8.
[19]	Subramaniam AG, Allen P, Toh T. Comparison of the Icare ic100 rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer in 1000 eyes. Ophthalmic Res, 2021, 64(2): 321-326. DOI: 10.1159/000511455.
[20]	Brown L, Foulsham W, Pronin S, et al. The influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using a rebound self-tonometer. J Glaucoma, 2018, 27(6): 511- 518. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000948.