The utility of Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) for monitoring intraocular pressure (IOP) in open-angle glaucoma (OAG) patients with a history of laser refractive surgery was investigated by comparing IOP fluctuations measured using GAT and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) on the same day. In this retrospective study, patients were divided into one of two subgroups according to IOP fluctuation values using GAT: 43 eyes in the low IOP fluctuation group (LIFG [GAT fluctuation 1.7 mmHg]); and 55 eyes in the high IOP fluctuation group (HIFG [GAT fluctuation >1.7 mmHg]). IOP fluctuation was defined as the standard deviation of all IOP values during follow-up. IOP parameters using GAT were compared with those of DCT. Correlation analyses were performed among IOP parameters, and between IOP fluctuation and associated factors including central corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and axial length. All IOP parameters demonstrated significantly high values in the HIFG compared with those in the LIFG. Mean and peak IOP using DCT were significantly higher than those using GAT in both groups. However, there were no significant differences in IOP fluctuation and reduction using both tonometry methods in the HIFG (p = 0.946 and p = 0.986, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis revealed similar fluctuations using GAT and DCT. In multivariate analyses, there was a significant correlation between fluctuations using GAT and DCT in the HIFG (p = 0.043). These results suggest that IOP monitoring using GAT is a reliable method of monitoring IOP change in glaucoma patients with a history of laser refractive surgery, especially those exhibiting high IOP fluctuation. Nevertheless, several factors, including central corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and axial length, should be considered when using GAT for IOP monitoring.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
This work was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (No. NRF-2017R1A2B4012 212). The funding organization played no role in study design or conduct. Authors’ contributions: Study design and conduct (SYL, HJK CYK); data collection, management, analysis, and interpretation (SYL, HWB, CYK); and preparation, review, and/or approval of the article (SYL, GJS, CYK)
© 2018 Lee et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)