Impact of Visual Field Testing on Intraocular Pressure Change Trends in Healthy People and Glaucoma Patients.
Journal
Journal of ophthalmology
ISSN: 2090-004X
Titre abrégé: J Ophthalmol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101524199
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
20
03
2020
accepted:
17
06
2020
entrez:
28
7
2020
pubmed:
28
7
2020
medline:
28
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare the impact of visual field (VF) testing on intraocular pressure (IOP) change trends between healthy subjects and glaucoma patients. We recruited healthy volunteer subjects who did not have previous ocular diseases and open-angle glaucoma patients who were medically controlled well. IOP in both eyes of each participant was measured by using a noncontact tonometer at five time points: before, immediately after (0 minute), and 10, 30, and 60 minutes after the standard automated perimetry. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the effect of VF testing on IOP change trends in healthy and glaucoma eyes. Forty healthy subjects (80 eyes) and 31 open-angle glaucoma patients (62 eyes) were included for the study. The baseline IOP of healthy and glaucoma eyes was 16.11 ± 3.01 mmHg and 15.78 ± 3.57 mmHg, respectively. After the VF testing, the IOP in healthy eyes was decreased by 1.5% at 0 minute, 6.5% at 10 minutes ( IOP change trends after VF field testing between healthy subjects and glaucoma patients were quite different. VF testing led to a mild and relatively sustained IOP decrease in healthy subjects, whereas IOP in open-angle glaucoma patients tended to significantly increase immediately after VF testing and, then, returned to pretest values after 1 hour. These findings indicate that the factors of VF testing should be considered in the clinical IOP measurements.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32714610
doi: 10.1155/2020/7936205
pmc: PMC7355374
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
7936205Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Mengwei Li et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Nov;183:37-41
pubmed: 28760639
J Glaucoma. 2004 Apr;13(2):178-9; author reply 179
pubmed: 15097267
Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2006 Mar;19(1):13-24, v
pubmed: 16500525
J Ophthalmol. 2020 Jan 28;2020:1352434
pubmed: 32082620
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014 May 15;55(6):3727-36
pubmed: 24833737
Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2014 Sep;58(5):429-34
pubmed: 25001008
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993 Mar;34(3):596-605
pubmed: 8383645
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2018 Mar;29(2):141-146
pubmed: 29256895
J Glaucoma. 2012 Dec;21(9):590-5
pubmed: 21673592
Exp Eye Res. 2017 May;158:3-12
pubmed: 27448987
J Glaucoma. 2012 Jan;21(1):45-8
pubmed: 21173703
EBioMedicine. 2019 Jun;44:554-562
pubmed: 31178426
Ophthalmology. 2016 Jan;123(1):P41-P111
pubmed: 26581556
Br J Ophthalmol. 2019 Sep;103(9):1209-1216
pubmed: 30910873
Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2020;9(1):66-70
pubmed: 31976346
Lancet. 2017 Nov 11;390(10108):2183-2193
pubmed: 28577860
Eye (Lond). 2007 Dec;21(12):1479-81
pubmed: 17024224
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2020 May 11;61(5):59
pubmed: 32462199
Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1984 Jan;61(1):28-30
pubmed: 6702998
Int Ophthalmol. 2018 Apr;38(2):687-696
pubmed: 28393323
Exp Eye Res. 2017 May;158:94-111
pubmed: 26850315
Can J Ophthalmol. 2014 Dec;49(6):484-8
pubmed: 25433736
J Glaucoma. 2003 Apr;12(2):114-8
pubmed: 12671465
BMC Ophthalmol. 2017 Nov 2;17(1):199
pubmed: 29096616