Dynamic contour tonometry over silicone hydrogel contact lens

Purpose: This study compared the measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) using the Dynamic Contour Tonometry (DCT) over silicone hydrogel contact lenses of different modulus. Corneal biomechanics were also measured using the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA). Methods...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Andrew K.C. Lam, Jimmy S.H. Tse
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2014-04-01
Series:Journal of Optometry
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429613000575
id doaj-c5b703464bad4baa9e25e5c75ab150f2
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c5b703464bad4baa9e25e5c75ab150f22020-11-25T01:28:19ZengElsevierJournal of Optometry1888-42962014-04-0172919910.1016/j.optom.2013.07.005Dynamic contour tonometry over silicone hydrogel contact lensAndrew K.C. LamJimmy S.H. TsePurpose: This study compared the measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) using the Dynamic Contour Tonometry (DCT) over silicone hydrogel contact lenses of different modulus. Corneal biomechanics were also measured using the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA). Methods: Forty-seven young (mean age 22.3 years, standard deviation 1.2 years) subjects had IOP, OPA, corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) measured without lens and with two brands of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Each eye wore one brand followed by another, randomly assigned, and then the lenses switched over. Difference and agreement of IOP and OPA with and without silicone hydrogel contact lens were studied. Results: The right and left eyes had similar corneal curvatures, central corneal thicknesses, IOP, OPA and corneal biomechanics at baseline. No significant difference was found in CH and CRF when they were measured over different contact lenses. IOP demonstrated a greater difference (95% limits of agreement: 2.73 mmHg) compared with no lens when it was measured over high modulus silicone hydrogel lenses. Agreement improved over low lens modulus silicone hydrogel lenses (95% limits of agreement: 2.2–2.4 mmHg). 95% limits of agreement were within 1.0 mmHg for OPA. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the feasibility of DCT over silicone hydrogel lenses. Low lens modulus silicone hydrogel contact lens in situ has no clinical effect on DCT.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429613000575Corneal hysteresisCorneal resistance factorIntraocular pressureOcular pulse amplitudeLens modulus
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Andrew K.C. Lam
Jimmy S.H. Tse
spellingShingle Andrew K.C. Lam
Jimmy S.H. Tse
Dynamic contour tonometry over silicone hydrogel contact lens
Journal of Optometry
Corneal hysteresis
Corneal resistance factor
Intraocular pressure
Ocular pulse amplitude
Lens modulus
author_facet Andrew K.C. Lam
Jimmy S.H. Tse
author_sort Andrew K.C. Lam
title Dynamic contour tonometry over silicone hydrogel contact lens
title_short Dynamic contour tonometry over silicone hydrogel contact lens
title_full Dynamic contour tonometry over silicone hydrogel contact lens
title_fullStr Dynamic contour tonometry over silicone hydrogel contact lens
title_full_unstemmed Dynamic contour tonometry over silicone hydrogel contact lens
title_sort dynamic contour tonometry over silicone hydrogel contact lens
publisher Elsevier
series Journal of Optometry
issn 1888-4296
publishDate 2014-04-01
description Purpose: This study compared the measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) using the Dynamic Contour Tonometry (DCT) over silicone hydrogel contact lenses of different modulus. Corneal biomechanics were also measured using the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA). Methods: Forty-seven young (mean age 22.3 years, standard deviation 1.2 years) subjects had IOP, OPA, corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) measured without lens and with two brands of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Each eye wore one brand followed by another, randomly assigned, and then the lenses switched over. Difference and agreement of IOP and OPA with and without silicone hydrogel contact lens were studied. Results: The right and left eyes had similar corneal curvatures, central corneal thicknesses, IOP, OPA and corneal biomechanics at baseline. No significant difference was found in CH and CRF when they were measured over different contact lenses. IOP demonstrated a greater difference (95% limits of agreement: 2.73 mmHg) compared with no lens when it was measured over high modulus silicone hydrogel lenses. Agreement improved over low lens modulus silicone hydrogel lenses (95% limits of agreement: 2.2–2.4 mmHg). 95% limits of agreement were within 1.0 mmHg for OPA. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the feasibility of DCT over silicone hydrogel lenses. Low lens modulus silicone hydrogel contact lens in situ has no clinical effect on DCT.
topic Corneal hysteresis
Corneal resistance factor
Intraocular pressure
Ocular pulse amplitude
Lens modulus
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429613000575
work_keys_str_mv AT andrewkclam dynamiccontourtonometryoversiliconehydrogelcontactlens
AT jimmyshtse dynamiccontourtonometryoversiliconehydrogelcontactlens
_version_ 1725102389594161152