Corvis ST与常用眼压计及角膜测厚仪在测量眼压及角膜厚度中的应用

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20210908-00370

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (24)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (1676 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS) Supporting Info

Guide

Abstract Objective: To compare the difference, correlation and consistency of intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness measured by visual corneal biomechanical analyzer (Corvis ST), three-dimensional anterior segment analyzer (Pentacam), non-contact tonometer (NCT), A ultrasound pachymetry(A-ultrasound) and optical biological ophthalmic measuring instrument (Lenstar). Methods: In this prospective study, 110 patients with myopia before refractive surgery in Foshan Second People's Hospital from August to December 2020 were included. Corvis ST intraocular pressure (IOP) and Biomechanical intraocular pressure (BIOP), NCT intraocular pressure and Pentacam corrected intraocular pressure for NCT were included in the intraocular pressure index; the central corneal thickness of Corvis ST, the central corneal thickness of the thinnest point of Pentacam, corneal thickness of Lenstar and corneal thickness of A-ultrasound were included in the corneal thickness index. The difference between intraocular pressure and corneal thickness were compared by One-way ANOVA, Pearson method was used for correlation analysis, and Bland-Altman was used for consistency test. Results: IOP: There was no significant difference in intraocular pressure measured by Corvis ST, NCT and Pentacam between the groups, among them, the difference of intraocular pressure measured by Corvis ST, NCT and Pentacam was statistically significant(P=0.019; P=0.03). IOP was positively correlated with intraocular pressure of NCT and corrected intraocular pressure of Pentacam(r=0.76, P<0.001; r=0.65, P<0.001), BIOP was positively correlated with intraocular pressure of NCT and corrected intraocular pressure of Pentacam (r=0.66, P<0.001; r=0.69, P<0.001), IOP was highly positively correlated with BIOP (r=0.92, P<0.001); the absolute value of 95% consistency limit and maximum difference between IOP and NCT intraocular pressure, Pentacam corrected intraocular pressure and BIOP were (-2.8-4.3 mmHg, 3.8 mmHg), (-3.1-4.5 mmHg, 4.1 mmHg), (-1.46-1.97 mmHg, 1.9 mmHg), the absolute value of 95% consistency limit and maximum difference between BIOP and NCT intraocular pressure and Pentacam corrected intraocular pressure were (-3.6- 4.6 mmHg, 4.2 mmHg), (-3.0-3.9 mmHg, 3.4 mmHg). Central corneal thickness: There was significant difference between Corvis ST and A-ultrasound, Lenstar and Pentacam (F=2.67, P=0.046), and there was significant difference between Corvis ST and A-ultrasound (P=0.017); There was a high positive correlation between Corvis ST and central corneal thickness measured by A-ultrasound, Lenstar and Pentacam (r=0.96, P<0.001; r=0.98, P<0.001, r=0.98, P<0.001). The 95% consistency limit and the absolute value of the maximum difference of the central corneal thickness measured by Corvis ST, A-ultrasound, Lenstar and Pentacam were(-5.9~24.3 μm, 23 μm), (-6.4~18.7 μm, 18 μm), (-10.7~12 μm, 11 μm). Conclusions: The intraocular pressure measured by Corvis ST can not be replaced by NCT and Pentacam, and the BIOP of Corvis ST is closer to the real intraocular pressure; the CCT measured value of Corvis ST can not be replaced with A-ultrasound and Lenstar, and it can be replaced with Pentacam

Key words： Corvis Scheimpflug technology Pentecam intraocular pressure central corneal thickness

Received: 08 September 2021

PACS:

Fund:

Corresponding Authors: Changjin Li, Deqartment of Ophtholmology, the second people's Hospital of Foshan, Foshan 528000, China (Email:fseg_changjin@126.com)

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Changjin Li
	Xue Li
	Qiang Lu

Cite this article:

Changjin Li,Xue Li,Qiang Lu. Observation and Study of Corvis ST, Common Tonometer and Corneal Pachymeter in Measuring Intraocular Pressure and Corneal Thickness[J]. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2022, 24(4): 278-285.

URL:

https://www.cjoovs.com/EN/10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20210908-00370 OR https://www.cjoovs.com/EN/Y2022/V24/I4/278

[1]	Terai N, Raiskup F, Haustein M, et al. Identification of biomechanical properties of the cornea: the ocular response analyzer. Curr Eye Res, 2012, 37(7): 553-562. DOI: 10.3109/02713683.2012.669007.
[2]	Knox Cartwright NE, Tyrer JR, Marshall J. Age-related differences in the elasticity of the human cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2011, 52(7):4324-4329. DOI: 10.1167/ iovs.09-4798.
[3]	Elsheikh A, Wang D, Brown M, et al. Assessment of corneal biomechanical properties and their variation with age. Curr EyeRes, 2007, 32(1) :11-19. DOI: 10.1080/02713680601077145.
[4]	Hamed-Azzam S, Briscoe D, Tomkins O, et al. Evaluation of intraocular pressure according to corneal thickness before and after excimer laser corneal ablation for myopia. Int Ophthalmol, 2013, 33(4): 349-354. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-012-9701-7.
[5]	Viswanathan D, Goldberg I, Graham SL. Relationship of change in central corneal thickness to visual field progression in eyes with glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2013, 251(6): 1593-1599. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-013-2295-6.
[6]	Christensen A, Narváez J, Zimmerman G. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by ultrasound pachymetry, konan noncontact optical pachymetry, and orbscan pachymetry. Cornea, 2008, 27(8): 862-865. DOI: 10.1097/ ICO.0b013e31816ed532.
[7]	Soleimanizad R, Nowroozzadeh MH, Ziaei H, et al. The association of central corneal thickness with ocular and general parameters in a community setting: the Yazd Eye Study. J Ophthalmic Vis Res, 2017, 12(2): 141-150. DOI:10.4103/jovr. jovr_111_15.
[8]	Hohberger B, Sommerfeld C, Lucio M, et al. ICare pro: age dependent effect of central corneal thickness on intraocular pressure in glaucoma and ocular hypertension patients. Curr Eye Res, 2020, 45(6): 668-674. DOI: 10.1080/02713683.2019.1696977.
[9]	祖培培, 王雁, 左彤, 等. 角膜生物力学眼压分析仪Corvis ST 测量值的重复性与一致性研究. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2013, 15(5): 261-265. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674- 845X.2013.05.002.
[10]	樊宁, 王希振, 王宁利, 等. 非接触式眼压计与Goldmann 压平眼压计测量眼压值一致性的 M e t a 分析 . 中华实验眼科杂志, 2017, 35(4): 339-343. DOI: 10.3760/cma. j.issn.2095-0160.2017.04.011.
[11]	韩晓彤, 赵海霞, 关文英, 等. CorvisST与Pentacam及 Topcon眼压计测量中央角膜厚度、眼压结果的一致性观察. 山东医药, 2016, 56(8): 87-88. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002- 266X.2016.08.036.
[12]	Luebke J, Bryniok L, Neuburger M, et al. Intraocular pressure measurement with Corvis ST in comparison with applanation tonometry and Tomey non-contact tonometry. Int Ophthalmol, 2019, 39(11): 2517-2521. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-019-01098-5.
[13]	Zhang Y, Zheng L, Bian A, et al. IOP measurement in silicone oil tamponade eyes by Corvis ST tonometer, Goldmann applanation tonometry and non-contact tonometry. Int Ophthalmol, 2018, 38(2): 697-703. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-017-0519-1.
[14]	李华, 王雁, 窦瑞, 等. 飞秒激光小切口角膜基质透镜取出术后眼压测量及其影响因素分析. 中华眼科杂志, 2016, 52(1): 22-29. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0412-4081.2016.01.008.
[15]	胡丹, 赵刚平, 余建洪, 等. Lenstar 900与A型超声和角膜曲率计在白内障患者眼生物学测量的比较. 国际眼科杂志, 2014, 14(8): 1440-1443. DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.1672-5123.2014.08.19.
[16]	肖信 , 刘伟民 , 黄建忠 , 等 . 角膜生物力学分析仪测量近视患者中央角膜厚度和眼压的准确性评价 . 中华实验眼科杂志, 2016, 34(4): 340-344. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-0160.2016.04.011.
[17]	李跃祖, 李俊, 张洁莹, 等. Corvis ST和Pentacam联合诊断系统测量角膜厚度及眼压的临床观察. 临床眼科杂志, 2020, 28(4): 341-346. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8422.2020.04.014.
[18]	Tappeiner C, Rohrer K, Frueh BE, et al. Clinical comparison of biometry using the non-contact optical low coherence reflectometer (Lenstar LS 900) and contact ultrasound biometer (Tomey AL-3000) in cataract eyes. Br J Ophthalmol, 2010, 94(5): 666-667. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2009.167700.
[19]	黄磊 , 段宝萍 , 胡琦 . 角膜厚度的非接触式测量及研究进展. 临床眼科杂志, 2010, 18(4): 380-383. DOI: 10.3969/ j.issn.1006-8422.2010.04.038.
[20]	陈长喜, 李建军, 游启生, 等. Pentacam眼前节分析仪测量中央角膜厚度的研究. 眼科, 2009, 18(6): 418-420. DOI: CNKI: SUN: YAKE. O. 2009-06-025.
[21]	杨雅静, 赵江月, 张劲松. 不同测厚仪角膜厚度测量值的对比研究. 国际眼科杂志, 2012, 12(10): 1863-1866. DOI: 10.3969/ j.issn.1672-5123.2012.10.12.
[22]	Yu A, Zhao W, Savini G, et al. Evaluation of central corneal thickness using corneal dynamic Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis ST and comparison with Pentacam Rotating Scheimpflug System and Ultrasound Pachymetry in normal eyes. J Ophthalmol, 2015, 2015: 767012. DOI: 10.1155/2015/767012.
[23]	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.
[24]	朱小敏, 张勇, 谢琳. Corvis®ST在青光眼中测量中央角膜厚度和眼内压的临床研究. 重庆医学, 2020, 49(21): 3556-3560. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-8348.2020.21.012.