June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
Comparison of Aqueous Outflow Facility Measurement by Pneumatonography and Digital Schiøtz Tonography
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Arash Kazemi
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN
  • Jay W McLaren
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN
  • Sayoko Eileen Moroi
    Ophthalmology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
  • Carol B Toris
    Ophthalmology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
  • Shuai-Chun Lin
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN
  • Arthur J Sit
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Arash Kazemi, None; Jay McLaren, None; Sayoko Moroi, None; Carol Toris, None; Shuai-Chun Lin, None; Arthur Sit, AcuMEMS, Inc. (C), Allergan, Inc. (C), Glaukos Corp. (C), Glaukos Corp. (F), Sensimed, AG (C), Sensimed, AG (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 4851. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Arash Kazemi, Jay W McLaren, Sayoko Eileen Moroi, Carol B Toris, Shuai-Chun Lin, Arthur J Sit; Comparison of Aqueous Outflow Facility Measurement by Pneumatonography and Digital Schiøtz Tonography. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):4851.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose
 

Electronic Schiøtz tonography was once the standard method for measuring outflow facility but it is no longer commercially available. This method has been replaced by a commercial pneumatonometer with a tonography option. In this study we compared outflow facility measured by pneumatongraphy to outflow facility measured by digital Schiøtz tonography.

 
Methods
 

Fifty eyes from 25 healthy adult subjects (age 41-67 years, mean 50 years) were examined as an ancillary study to an existing clinical trial. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured in the supine position by pneumatonometry (Model 30 Classic, Mentor). Outflow facility was then measured by pneumatonography (10-gm weight, 2 minutes) and 45 minutes later by custom digital Schiøtz tonography (5.5-gm weight, 4 minutes) in the supine position. The pneumatonographic printed tracings were digitized, a second-order polynomial was fitted to pressure vs time, and outflow facility was determined from the IOP on the fitted curve at 0 and 2 minutes. A second-order polynomial was fitted to pressures measured by Schiøtz tonography and outflow facility was determined from pressure on the curve at 0 and 4 minutes by using standard tables and nomograms. Ocular rigidity was calculated for each eye from the supine IOP and IOP at the beginning of the pneumatonogram and used to determine outflow facility for both methods. Significance of the difference between instruments was determined by using generalized estimating equation models to account for possible correlation between fellow eyes of the same subject, and relationships were illustrated by Pearson correlation.

 
Results
 

Mean outflow facility was 0.23± 0.07 µL/min/mm Hg (± SD) by Schiøtz tonography and 0.21± 0.07 µL/min/mm Hg by pneumatonography (p=0.003). Outflow facilities by the two methods were correlated (r=0.68, p<0.001). Mean ocular rigidity was 0.028.

 
Conclusions
 

Outflow facilities measured by Schiøtz tonography and pneumatonography are correlated, but Schiøtz tonography reports slightly higher values. This study cannot determine which method is more accurate. Difference in shape and size of the two tonographer tips may be responsible for differences in outflow facility between these instruments.

 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×