Evaluation of a contact lens-embedded sensor for intraocular pressure measurement

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 382-390

  Twa, Michael D ^a   Roberts, Cynthia J ^b,c   Karol, Huikai J ^c   Mahmoud, Ashraf M ^b,c   Weber, Paul A ^c   Small, Robert H ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

^b The Ohio State University   (United States)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

contact lens; intraocular pressure; pressure sensor; tonometry

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTACT LENS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEART RATE; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE; NORMAL HUMAN; OCULOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY; OPTICAL BIOSENSOR; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SITTING; SLIT LAMP; SUPINE POSITION; BLOOD PRESSURE; BODY POSTURE; DEVICES; EVALUATION STUDY; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESSURE TRANSDUCER; REPRODUCIBILITY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; BLOOD PRESSURE; CONTACT LENSES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; POSTURE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TONOMETRY, OCULAR; TRANSDUCERS, PRESSURE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77956023921     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181c4ac3d     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Liu JH, Kripke DF, Hoffman RE, et al. Nocturnal elevation of intraocular pressure in young adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39:2707-2712.
2. Liu JH, Kripke DF, Twa MD, et al. Twenty-four-hour pattern of intraocular pressure in the aging population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:2912-2917.
3. Liu JH, Lindsey JD, Weinreb RN. Physiological factors in the circadian rhythm of protein concentration in aqueous humor. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39:553-558.
4. Liu JH, Kripke DF, Weinreb RN. Comparison of the nocturnal effects of once-daily timolol and latanoprost on intraocular pressure. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:389-395.
5. Sit AJ. Continuous monitoring of intraocular pressure: rationale and progress toward a clinical device. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:272-279.
6. Dresher RP, Irazoqui PP. A Compact Nanopower Low Output Impedance CMOS Operational Amplifier for Wireless Intraocular Pressure Recordings. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2007;1:6055-6058.
7. Leonardi M, Leuenberger P, Bertrand D, et al. A soft contact lens with a MEMS strain gage embedded for intraocular pressure monitoring. In: Leuenberger P, eds. TRANSDUCERS, Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems, 12th International Conference on, 2003; 2003:1043-1046 vol.1042.
8. Leonardi M, Leuenberger P, Bertrand D, et al. First steps toward noninvasive intraocular pressure monitoring with a sensing contact lens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45: 3113-3117.
9. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Robert YC, et al. Ocular pulse amplitude in healthy subjects as measured by dynamic contour tonometry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:1104-1108.
10. Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:146-155.
11. Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Dynamic contour tonometry: a comparative study on human cadaver eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:1287-1293.
12. Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry compared with applanation tonometry in human cadaver eyes of different hydration states. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243:359-366.
13. Ceruti P, Morbio R, Marraffa M, et al. Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in healthy and glaucomatous eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145:215-221.
14. Chihara E. Assessment of true intraocular pressure: the gap between theory and practical data. Surv Ophthalmol. 2008;53: 203-218.
15. Erdurmus M, Totan Y, Hepsen IF, et al. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and noncontact tonometry in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Eye. 2009;23:663-668.
16. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8: 135-160.
17. Weizer JS, Asrani S, Stinnett SS, et al. The clinical utility of dynamic contour tonometry and ocular pulse amplitude. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:700-703.
18. Halkiadakis I, Patsea E, Skouriotis KC, et al. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma practice. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009;87: 323-328.
19. Milla E, Duch S, Buchacra O, et al. Poor agreement between Goldmann and Pascal tonometry in eyes with extreme pachymetry. Eye. 2009;23:536-542.
20. Mollan SP, Wolffsohn JS, Nessim M, et al. Accuracy of goldmann, ocular response analyser, pascal and TonoPen XL tonometry in keratoconic and normal eyes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:1661-1665.
21. Anderson DR, Grant WM. The influence of position on intraocular pressure. Invest Ophthalmol. 1973;12:204-212.
22. Jain MR, Marmion VJ. Rapid pneumatic and Mackey-Marg applanation tonometry to evaluate the postural effect on intraocular pressure. Br J Ophthalmol. 1976;60:687-693.
23. Krieglstein G, Langham ME. Influence of body position on the intraocular pressure of normal and glaucomatous eyes. Ophthalmologica. 1975;171:132-145.
24. Pache M, Wilmsmeyer S, Lautebach S, et al. Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243: 763-767.
25. Motolko MA, Feldman F, Hyde M, et al. Sources of variability in the results of applanation tonometry. Can J Ophthalmol. 1982;17:93-95.
26. Schwenn O, Troost R, Vogel A, et al. Ocular pulse amplitude in patients with open angle glaucoma, normal tension glaucoma, and ocular hypertension. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:981-984.