Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.61(1) > 1141393

Park, Kim, Lee, Lee, Jeong, and Lee: The Difference in Intraocular Pressure before and after Visual Field Test Measured by Rebound Tonometer

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the effect of a visual field (VF) test on intraocular pressure (IOP) and relevant parameters in a normal group and an open-angle glaucoma group, and to determine the appropriate time of IOP measurements.

Methods

The IOP was measured by a rebound tonometer before and after a VF test for the normal, normal-tension glaucoma, and high-tension glaucoma groups, and IOP differences after the VF tests were compared among groups. Parameters including age, sex, axial length, central corneal thickness, IOP before the VF test, the VF index, mean deviation, VF test duration, and usage of IOP lowering medications were investigated, and the correlations of these parameters with IOP changes after VF tests were determined using linear regression analyses.

Results

A total of 232 participants (232 eyes) included 55 normal subjects, 131 normal-tension glaucoma patients, and 46 high-tension glaucoma patients. The IOP differences after VF tests were not statistically significant in the normal and high-tension glaucoma groups, and the difference was 0.31 mmHg in the normal-tension glaucoma group (p = 0.013). Multivariate regression analyses revealed that axial length (p = 0.005) and IOP before the VF test (p < 0.001) were relevant factors in the total number of patients, and the axial length (p = 0.017), IOP before the VF test (p = 0.001), and duration (p = 0.029) were found to be significantly associated with IOP differences in the normal-tension glaucoma group.

Conclusions

The IOP changes after VF tests using the rebound tonometer were significant in the normal-tension glaucoma group, but were within an acceptable range. The IOP value measured after a VF test is clinically valid in clinical practice.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

The distribution of intraocular pressure (IOP) changes after visual field test. Normal group (A) and high tension glaucoma group (C) show similar distribution between patients with increased and decreased IOP after visual field test, but normal tension glaucoma group showed high concentration of patients with increased IOP (B).

jkos-61-78-g001
Table 1

The comparison of characteristics between normal subject group, normal tension glaucoma group, and high tension glaucoma group

jkos-61-78-i001

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number (%) unless otherwise indicated.

NTG = normal tension glaucoma group; HTG = high tension glaucoma group; IOP = intraocular pressure; Nl = normal group; CCT = central corneal thickness; MD = mean deviation; VFI = visual field index.

*Bonferroni method; one-way analysis of variance; chi-square test.

Table 2

The differences of intraocular pressure after visual field test in three groups

jkos-61-78-i002

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

NTG = normal tension glaucoma group; HTG = high tension glaucoma group.

*Paired t-test.

Table 3

Univariate and multivariate regression analyses for intraocular pressure differences after visual field test in total subjects

jkos-61-78-i003

β = β coefficient; SE = standard error; CCT = central corneal thickness; IOP = intraocular pressure; HVF = Humphrey Visual Field; MD = mean deviation.

*Univariate linear regression analysis; multivariate linear regression analysis; male was coded as 1.

Table 4

Univariate and multivariate regression analyses for intraocular pressure differences after visual field test in the normal tension glaucoma group

jkos-61-78-i004

β = β coefficient; SE = standard error; CCT = central corneal thickness; IOP = intraocular pressure; HVF = Humphrey Visual Field; MD = mean deviation.

*Univariate linear regression analysis; multivariate linear regression analysis; male was coded as 1.

Table 5

The comparison of characteristics between the intraocular pressure change exceeding 2 mmHg and the intraocular pressure change under 2 mmHg in normal tension glaucoma group

jkos-61-78-i005

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number (%) unless otherwise indicated.

IOP = intraocular pressure; CCT = central corneal thickness; MD = mean deviation; VFI = visual field index.

*t-test; chi-square test.

Notes

This study was presented as a poster at the 115th Annual Meeting of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2016.

This work was supported by a research grant from Jeju National University Hospital development fund in 2016.

Conflicts of Interest The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

References

1. Jamal KN, Gürses-Özden R, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Attempted eyelid closure affects intraocular pressure measurement in open-angle glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002; 134:186–189.
crossref pmid
2. Rota-Bartelink AM, Pitt A, Story I. Influence of diurnal variation on the intraocular pressure measurement of treated primary open-angle glaucoma during office hours. J Glaucoma. 1996; 5:410–415.
crossref pmid
3. Whitacre MM, Stein R. Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol. 1993; 38:1–30.
crossref pmid
4. Sudesh S, Moseley MJ, Thompson JR. Accuracy of Goldmann tonometry in clinical practice. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1993; 71:185–188.
crossref pmid
5. Ni N, Tsai JC, Shields MB, Loewen NA. Elevation of intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients after automated visual field testing. J Glaucoma. 2012; 21:590–595.
crossref pmid pmc
6. Martin L. Intraocular pressure before and after visual field examination. Eye (Lond). 2007; 21:1479–1481.
crossref pmid
7. Sawada A, Yamada H, Yamamoto Y, Yamamoto T. Intraocular pressure alterations after visual field testing. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2014; 58:429–434.
crossref pmid
8. Recupero SM, Contestabile MT, Taverniti L, et al. Open-angle glaucoma: variations in the intraocular pressure after visual field examination. J Glaucoma. 2003; 12:114–118.
crossref pmid
9. Rebolleda G, Rodríguez-Villace C, Anton MV, Muñoz-Negrete FJ. Variations in intraocular pressure after visual field examination. J Glaucoma. 2004; 13:178–179.
crossref pmid
10. Lee CM, Yoo YC. Short-term effect of standard automated perimetry testing on intraocular pressure in patients with open-angle glaucoma. ISRN Ophthalmol. 2013; 2013:956504.
crossref
11. Salim S, Du H, Wan J. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements and assessment of intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility with the portable ICare rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2013; 22:325–329.
crossref pmid
12. Kim KN, Jeoung JW, Park KH, et al. Comparison of the new rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in a clinical setting. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013; 91:e392–e396.
crossref
13. Schweier C, Hanson JV, Funk J, Töteberg-Harms M. Repeatability of intraocular pressure measurements with Icare PRO rebound, Tono-Pen AVIA, and Goldmann tonometers in sitting and reclining positions. BMC Ophthalmol. 2013; 13:44.
crossref pmid pmc
14. Mauger RR, Likens CP, Applebaum M. Effects of accommodation and repeated applanation tonometry on intraocular pressure. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1984; 61:28–30.
crossref
15. Erb C, Brody S, Rau H. Effect of mental and physical stress on intraocular pressure--a pilot study. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1998; 212:270–274.
pmid
16. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, et al. Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2006; 15:213–217.
crossref
17. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Vico E, et al. Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and Goldmann tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113:2156–2162.
crossref
18. Sahin A, Basmak H, Niyaz L, Yildirim N. Reproducibility and tolerability of the ICare rebound tonometer in school children. J Glaucoma. 2007; 16:185–188.
crossref pmid
19. Van der Jagt LH, Jansonius NM. Three portable tonometers, the TGDc-01, the ICARE and the Tonopen XL, compared with each other and with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005; 25:429–435.
crossref pmid
TOOLS
Similar articles