A clinical description of ocular response analyzer measurements

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 52, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 2911-2916

  Lau, William ^a   Pye, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUTOANALYZER; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORNEA THICKNESS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; FEMALE; GEOMETRY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HYSTERESIS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; KERATOMETRY; LIMIT OF DETECTION; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFERENCE VALUE; RIGIDITY; TONOMETER; VISUAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION; VISUAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BIOMECHANICS; CORNEA; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; REFERENCE VALUES; TONOMETRY, OCULAR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79955976348     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-6763     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. International Standards Organization. ISO8612:2001(E): Ophthalmic Instruments-Tonometers. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO Copyright Office; 2001.
2. Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;44:367-408.
3. Wolfs RC, Klaver CC, Vingerling JR, Grobbee DE, Hofman A, de Jong PT. Distribution of central corneal thickness and its association with intraocular pressure: The Rotterdam Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123:767-772.
4. Whitacre MM, Stein RA, Hassanein K. The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;115:592-596.
5. Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S. Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1975;53:34-43.
6. Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:364-370.
7. Mark HH. Corneal curvature in applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol. 1973;76:223-224.
8. Kwon TH, Ghaboussi J, Pecknold DA, Hashash YM. Role of corneal biomechanical properties in applanation tonometry measurements. J Refract Surg. 2010;26:512-519.
9. Kwon TH, Ghaboussi J, Pecknold DA, Hashash YM. Effect of cornea material stiffness on measured intraocular pressure. J Biomech. 2008;41:1707-1713.
10. Hamilton KE, Pye DC. Young's modulus in normal corneas and the effect on applanation tonometry. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:445-450.
11. Elsheikh A, Wang D, Kotecha A, Brown M, Garway-Heath D. Evaluation of Goldmann applanation tonometry using a nonlinear finite element ocular model. Ann Biomed Eng. 2006;34:1628-1640.
12. Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:146-155.
13. Luce DA. Methodology for corneal compensated IOP and corneal resistance factor for An Ocular Response Analyzer. Available at http://www.ocularresponseanalyzer.com/downloads/luce-2006-1.pdf. Accessed May 26 2010.
14. Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:156-162.
15. Grolman B. A new tonometer system. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom. 1972;49:646-660.
16. Luce DA, Taylor D. Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer measures corneal biomechanical properties and IOP. White Paper. Available at http://www.ocularresponseanalyzer.com/ocular%20response%20analyzer%20white%20paper.pdf. Accessed May 26, 2010.
17. du Toit R, Vega JA, Fonn D, Simpson T. Diurnal variation of corneal sensitivity and thickness. Cornea. 2003;22:205-209.
18. Holden BA, Mertz GW, McNally JJ. Corneal swelling response to contact lenses worn under extended wear conditions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1983;24:218-226.
19. Mandell RB, Fatt I. Thinning of the human cornea on awakening. Nature. 1965;208:292-293.
20. Ocular Response Analyzer's User Guide (Revision B). Buffalo, NY: Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments; 2005.
21. Kass MA. Standardizing the measurement of intraocular pressure for clinical research: guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:183-185.
22. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175-191.
23. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135-160.
24. Field A. Regression: Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: Sage 2005;143-218.
25. Leite MT, Alencar LM, Gore C, et al. Comparison of corneal biomechanical properties between healthy blacks and whites using the ocular response analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;150:163-168.
26. Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Ohmoto F. Effect of aging on corneal biomechanical parameters using the ocular response analyzer. J Refract Surg. 2009;25:888-893.
27. Chui WS, Lam A, Chen D, Chiu R. The influence of corneal properties on rebound tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2008;115: 80-84.
28. Montard R, Kopito R, Touzeau O, et al. Ocular response analyzer: feasibility study and correlation with normal eyes (in French). J Fr Ophtalmol. 2007;30:978-984.
29. Lam A, Chen D, Chiu R, Chui WS. Comparison of IOP measurements between ORA and GAT in normal Chinese. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:909-914.
30. Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Cunliffe I, Mantry S. The use of the Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer to establish the relationship between ocular hysteresis, corneal resistance factor and central corneal thickness in normal eyes. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2006; 29:257-262.
31. Renier C, Zeyen T, Fieuws S, Vandenbroeck S, Stalmans I. Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer. Int Ophthalmol. 2010;30: 651-659.
32. Bayoumi NH, Bessa AS, El Massry AA. Ocular response analyzer and goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study of findings. J Glaucoma. 2010;19;627-631.
33. Vandewalle E, Vandenbroeck S, Stalmans I, Zeyen T. Comparison of ICare, dynamic contour tonometer, and ocular response analyzer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19:783-789.
34. Oncel B, Dinc U, Orge F, Yalvac B. Comparison of IOP measurement by ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour, Goldmann applanation, and noncontact tonometry. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009; 19:936-941.
35. Hager A, Loge K, Schroeder B, Fullhas MO, Wiegand W. Effect of central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis on tonometry as measured by dynamic contour tonometry, ocular response analyzer, and Goldmann tonometry in glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma. 2008;17:361-365.
36. Ehrlich JR, Haseltine S, Shimmyo M, Radcliffe NM. Evaluation of agreement between intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry and Goldmann correlated intraocular pressure by Reichert's ocular response Analyzer. Eye (Lond). 2010;24:1555-1560.
37. Kotecha A, Elsheikh A, Roberts CR, Zhu H, Garway-Heath DF. Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:5337-5347.
38. Elsheikh A, Alhasso D, Kotecha A, Garway-Heath D. Assessment of the ocular response analyzer as a tool for intraocular pressure measurement. J Biomech Eng. 2009;131:081010.
39. Ytteborg J, Dohlman CH. Corneal edema and intraocular pressure, II: clinical results. Arch Ophthalmol. 1965;74:477-484.
40. Zhang H, Xu L, Chen C, Jonas JB. Central corneal thickness in adult Chinese: association with ocular and general parameters. The Beijing Eye Study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;246: 587-592.
41. Casson RJ, Abraham LM, Newland HS, et al. Corneal thickness and intraocular pressure in a nonglaucomatous Burmese population: the Meiktila Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126:981-985.
42. Shimmyo M, Ross AJ, Moy A, Mostafavi R. Intraocular pressure, Goldmann applanation tension, corneal thickness, and corneal curvature in Caucasians, Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:603-613.
43. Hahn S, Azen S, Ying-Lai M, Varma R. Central corneal thickness in Latinos. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:1508-1512.
44. Tonnu PA, Ho T, Newson T, et al. The influence of central corneal thickness and age on intraocular pressure measured by pneumotonometry, non-contact tonometry, the Tono-Pen XL, and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:851-854.
45. Ko YC, Liu CJ, Hsu WM. Varying effects of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurements with different tonometers. Eye. 2005;19:327-332.
46. Goldmann H, Schmidt T. Applanation tonometry [English translation]. Reprint from Ü ber applanationstonometrie. Ophthalmologica 1957;134:221-242. In: Ritch R, Caronia RM, eds. Classic Papers in Glaucoma. The Hague, The Netherlands: Kugler Publications; 2000;155-162.
47. Touboul D, Roberts C, Kerautret J, et al. Correlations between corneal hysteresis, intraocular pressure, and corneal central pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:616-622.
48. Hager A, Loge K, Fullhas MO, Schroeder B, Grossherr M, Wiegand W. Changes in corneal hysteresis after clear corneal cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:341-346.
49. Franco S, Lira M. Biomechanical properties of the cornea measured by the Ocular Response Analyzer and their association with intraocular pressure and the central corneal curvature. Clin Exp Optom. 2009;92:469-475.
50. Fontes BM, Ambrosio R Jr, Alonso RS, Jardim D, Velarde GC, Nose W. Corneal biomechanical metrics in eyes with refraction of _19.00 to+ 9.00 D in healthy Brazilian patients. J Refract Surg. 2008;24:941-945.