Person:
Méndez Hernández, Carmen Dora

Profile Picture
First Name
Carmen Dora
Last Name
Méndez Hernández
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/79612
Affiliation
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Faculty / Institute
Medicina
Department
Inmunología, Oftalmología y ORL
Area
Oftalmología
Identifiers
UCM identifierScopus Author IDDialnet ID

Filters

2020 - 20212
Reset filters

Settings

Author: Pérez García, Pilar × Subject: 617.7-073.178 ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparision of intraocular pressure measured using the new icare 200™ rebound tonometer and the Perkins™ applanation tonometer in healthy subjects and in patients with primary congenital glaucoma
    (Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología (English Edition), 2021) Pérez García, Pilar; Morales Fernández, Laura; Sáenz Francés, Federico; Méndez Hernández, Carmen Dora; García Feijoo, Julián; Santos Bueso, Enrique; Martínez De La Casa Fernández-Borrella, José María
    Objective: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using the Icare 200™ (IC200) rebound tonometer and the hand-held version of the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (Perkins™ tonometer, GAT) in patients with primary congenital glaucoma (PCG) and in healthy subjects. Material and methods: A total of 42 eyes of healthy subjects (G1) and 40 patients with PCG (G2) were analysed. The following clinical data were collected: gender, age, Cup/Disc ratio, central corneal thickness (CCT). IOP was determined in the examination room using the IC200 and GAT tonometers, in the same order. Agreement between both tonometers was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot. A linear regression analysis was used to establish the IOP was affected by the studied variables. Results: Mean IOP between both tonometers (IC200 minus GAT) was: G1 = 15.91 (2.57) mmHg vs. 15.06 (2.12) mmHg (mean difference, MD = 0.84 (0.50) mmHg; P < .101) and G2=20.10 (6.37) vs.19.12 (5.62) (MD = 0.98 (1.36); P = 0.474). Excellent agreement was found between IC200 and GAT in both groups (ICC = G1: 0.875 (95% CI; 0.768−0.933; P < .001); G2: 0.924 (95% CI; 0.852−0.961; P < .001), and there was a statistically significant correlation between the IOP difference measured with IC200 and GAT and CCT in G1 (B=0.021; 95% CI; 0.005–0.037; P = .008), but was not statistically significant in G2. Conclusions: There was excellent agreement between the IC200 and GAT tonometers, both in healthy subjects and PCG, with a trend to overestimate IOP when measured with IC200. There was no influence by CCT on IOP measurements in patients with PGC.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Agreement between rebound (Icare ic200) and applanation tonometry (Perkins) in patients with primary congenital glaucoma
    (Acta Ophthalmologica, 2020) Morales Fernández, Laura; Pérez García, Pilar; Sáenz Francés, Federico; Molero Senosiain, Mercedes; García Sáenz, Sofía; Méndez Hernández, Carmen Dora; Santos Bueso, Enrique; García Feijoo, Julián; Martínez De La Casa Fernández-Borrella, José María
    Purpose: To examine agreement between intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements made using the rebound tonometer Icare ic200 (RT200) and the Perkins handheld applanation tonometer (PAT) in patients with primary congenital glaucoma (PCG). The impacts of several covariables on measurements using the two devices were also assessed. Materials and Methods: Intraocular pressure measurements were made in a single session in 86 eyes of 86 patients with PCG (46 under anaesthesia, 40 in the office). The order was RT200 then PAT. The variables age, central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal state and anaesthesia were recorded in each patient. Data were compared by determining interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for each tonometer and representing the differences detected as Bland–Altman plots. Effects of covariables were assessed through univariate and multivariate regression. Results: Mean IOP difference between tonometers (RT200 minus PAT) was 1.26 mmHg (95%: 0.22–2.31). Absolute agreement (ICC) was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.62–0.82). Lower and upper limits of agreement (95%) were −8.06 mmHg (95% CI: −9.87 to −6.25) and 10.59 mmHg (95% CI: 8.77–12.40), respectively. The tonometers showed systematic differences (a = −4.63 mmHg; 95% CI: −9.11 to −1.44) and proportional differences; for each mmHg increase in PAT‐IOP, the RT200 reading increased by 1.28 mmHg (b = 1.28; 95% CI: 1.12–1.53). None of the variables tested as predictors were able to explain differences between the tonometers. Conclusions: Despite the good overall agreement between both tonometers, caution should be taken in high values of IOP, considering the interchangeability of its readings as systematic and proportional differences appear to exist between both methods.