摘要
Aims: Pressure phosphene tonometry is said to assess intraocular pressure by i nducing a pressure phosphene. This study compared the results of this relatively newtechnique with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Methods: A total of 100 patie nts (196 readings) in a general ophthalmology clinic at Dunedin Hospital who con sented to take part in this study were randomised to receive by different examin ers either pressure phosphene tonometry by a Proview(tm) eye pressure monitor (B ausch &Lomb Inc., Tampa, FL, USA) or Goldmann tonometry first. There was no com munication between the examiners regarding results. Results: Of the 196 attempte d readings, pressure phosphene tonometer readings were only able to be obtained for 136 eyes (69%) compared to all 196 (100%) eyes with the Goldmann tonometer . The mean IOPs were 18.5 mmHg using the pressure phosphene tonometer and 16.0 m mHg using the Goldmann tonometer. The mean difference was +2.43 mmHg (95%confi dence interval: 10.37 mmHg below to 15.22 mmHg above Goldmann readings). Conclus ion: This study found that 31%of patients could not perceive a pressure phosphe ne using the Proview(tm)eye pressure monitor. Data obtained from those who could perceive the phosphene indicated that large discrepancies between pressure phos phene tonometry and Goldmann tonometry were common.
Aims: Pressure phosphene tonometry is said to assess intraocular pressure by i nducing a pressure phosphene. This study compared the results of this relatively newtechnique with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Methods: A total of 100 patie nts (196 readings) in a general ophthalmology clinic at Dunedin Hospital who con sented to take part in this study were randomised to receive by different examin ers either pressure phosphene tonometry by a Proview(tm) eye pressure monitor (B ausch &Lomb Inc., Tampa, FL, USA) or Goldmann tonometry first. There was no com munication between the examiners regarding results. Results: Of the 196 attempte d readings, pressure phosphene tonometer readings were only able to be obtained for 136 eyes (69%) compared to all 196 (100%) eyes with the Goldmann tonometer . The mean IOPs were 18.5 mmHg using the pressure phosphene tonometer and 16.0 m mHg using the Goldmann tonometer. The mean difference was +2.43 mmHg (95%confi dence interval: 10.37 mmHg below to 15.22 mmHg above Goldmann readings). Conclus ion: This study found that 31%of patients could not perceive a pressure phosphe ne using the Proview(tm)eye pressure monitor. Data obtained from those who could perceive the phosphene indicated that large discrepancies between pressure phos phene tonometry and Goldmann tonometry were common.
出处
《世界核心医学期刊文摘（眼科学分册）》
2005年第10期32-32,共1页
Digest of the World Core Medical Journals:Ophthalmology
