Purchase this article with an account.
Arash Kazemi, Jay W. McLaren, Shuai-Chun Lin, Carol B. Toris, Vikas Gulati, Sayoko E. Moroi, Arthur J. Sit; Comparison of Aqueous Outflow Facility Measurement by Pneumatonography and Digital Schiøtz Tonography. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(1):204-210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.16-20754.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
It is not known if outflow facilities measured by pneumatonography and Schiøtz tonography are interchangeable. In this study we compared outflow facility measured by pneumatonography to outflow facility measured by digital Schiøtz tonography.
Fifty-six eyes from 28 healthy participants, ages 41 to 68 years, were included. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured in the sitting and supine positions with a pneumatonometer. With the subject in the supine position, IOP was recorded for 2 minutes by using a pneumatonometer with a 10-g weight and for 4 minutes by using a custom digital Schiøtz tonometer. Outflow facility was determined from the changes in pressure and intraocular volume and a standard assumed ocular rigidity coefficient for each instrument, respectively, and by using an ocular rigidity coefficient calculated by measuring pressure without and with a weight added to the pneumatonometer tip.
The outflow facility was 0.29 ± 0.09 μL/min/mm Hg by Schiøtz tonography and 0.24 ± 0.08 μL/min/mm Hg by pneumatonography (P < 0.001) when using the standard assumed constant ocular rigidity coefficient. Mean calculated ocular rigidity coefficient was 0.028 ± 0.01 μL−1, and outflow facility determined by using this coefficient was 0.23 ± 0.08 μL/min/mm Hg by Schiøtz tonography and 0.21 ± 0.07 μL/min/mm Hg by pneumatonography (P = 0.003). Outflow facilities measured by the two devices were correlated when the ocular rigidity was assumed (r = 0.60, P < 0.001) or calculated (r = 0.70, P < 0.001).
Outflow facilities measured by pneumatonography were correlated with those measured by Schiøtz tonography, but Schiøtz tonography reported approximately 10% to 20% higher facilities when using the standard method. When ocular rigidity was determined for each eye, differences were smaller. Measurements from these devices cannot be compared directly.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only