Purpose. To evaluate the short-term effect of standard automated perimetry (SAP) testing on intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG). Methods. We tested 45 patients (71 eyes) with OAG that had stable IOP under medical treatment. IOP was measured four times using an iCare rebound tonometer (RBT) immediately before, immediately after, 10 minutes after, and 20 minutes after SAP testing. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the relationships among SAP test duration, mean deviation of the SAP result, type of glaucoma medications, patient age, and significant IOP change (exceeding 2？mmHg) from baseline IOP. Results. The mean baseline IOP was 13.29 ± 3.06？mmHg. Although IOP changes immediately and 20 minutes after SAP testing were not statistically significant, the IOP change 10 minutes after SAP testing (？0.57 ± 1.84？mmHg) was statistically significant. However, the changes were within the margin of error of the RBT. Test duration, mean deviation, patient age, and type of glaucoma medications did not have a significant influence on IOP change (all ). Conclusions. IOP measured by RBT did not vary significantly after SAP testing in patients with OAG. It may be not necessary to reject IOP measured after SAP testing in patients with OAG. 1. Introduction Intraocular pressure (IOP) remains the only treatable risk factor for the management of glaucoma. Repeated IOP measurement and standard automated perimetry (SAP) testing are simple but fundamental procedures used to assess the stage of progression and to determine adequate treatment for patients with glaucoma [1, 2]. On a daily basis in our practice, IOP is measured after SAP testing. Afterward, both the SAP results and IOP are discussed with the patients, and their treatment strategies for glaucoma may be adjusted. There is a possibility that visual field examination performed before IOP measurement using both topical anesthetics and fluorescein dye affects the IOP values, misleading the clinician to strengthen the patients’ glaucoma treatment plan. Currently, there is no consensus in the literature about the effects of SAP testing on IOP. One prospective study reported that IOP varied significantly and tended to increase immediately after SAP testing in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), but other studies have reported no significant difference [3–5]. But, there was no trial that evaluates serial changes of IOP values through timeline after SAP testing. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the short-term effects of SAP testing on IOP
References
[1]
T. Schmidt, “The use of the Goldmann applanation tonometer,” Transactions of the Ophthalmological Societies of the United Kingdom, vol. 79, pp. 637–650, 1959.
[2]
H. C. Agarwal, V. Gulati, and R. Sihota, “Visual field assessment in glaucoma: comparative evaluation of manual kinetic Goldmann perimetry and automated static perimetry,” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 301–306, 2000.
[3]
S. M. Recupero, M. T. Contestabile, L. Taverniti, G. M. Villani, and V. Recupero, “Open-angle glaucoma: variations in the intraocular pressure after visual field examination,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 114–118, 2003.
[4]
G. Rebolleda, C. Rodríguez-Villace, M. V. Anton et al., “Variations in intraocular pressure after visual field examination,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 178–179, 2004.
[5]
L. Martin, “Intraocular pressure before and after visual field examination,” Eye, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1479–1481, 2007.
[6]
A. H. Neufeld, S. P. Bartels, and J. H. K. Liu, “Laboratory and clinical studies on the mechanism of action of timolol,” Survey of Ophthalmology, vol. 28, pp. 286–292, 1983.
[7]
T. R. Walters, “Development and use of brimonidine in treating acute and chronic elevations of intraocular pressure: a review of safety, efficacy, dose response, and dosing studies,” Survey of Ophthalmology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. S19–S26, 1996.
[8]
R. N. Weinreb, C. B. Toris, B. A. T. Gabelt, J. D. Lindsey, and P. L. Kaufman, “Effects of prostaglandins on the aqueous humor outflow pathways,” Survey of Ophthalmology, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. S53–S64, 2002.
[9]
T. H. Maren, “The development of topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 49–62, 1995.
[10]
C. M. Lee and Y. C. Yu, “Intraocular pressure measurement with the noncontact tonometer and rebound tonometer through plano soft contact lenses,” Journal of Korean Ophthalmological Society, vol. 53, pp. 662–667, 2012.
[11]
M. A. Kass, D. K. Heuer, E. J. Higginbotham et al., “The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 120, no. 6, pp. 701–713, 2002.
[12]
A. Heijl, M. C. Leske, B. Bengtsson, L. Hyman, B. Bengtsson, and M. Hussein, “Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 120, no. 10, pp. 1268–1279, 2002.
[13]
N. Ni, J. C. Tsai, M. B. Shields, and N. A. Loewen, “Elevation of intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients after automated visual field testing,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 590–595, 2012.
[14]
P. R. Lichter and T. J. Bergstrom, “Premature ventricular systole detection by applanation tonometry,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 81, no. 6, pp. 797–803, 1976.
[15]
J. T. Holladay, M. E. Allison, and T. C. Prager, “Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with regular corneal astigmatism,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 90–93, 1983.
[16]
R. A. Moses and R. J. Arnzen, “Instantaneous tonometry,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 249–252, 1983.
[17]
S. Asrani, A. Chatterjee, D. K. Wallace, C. Santiago-Turla, and S. Stinnett, “Evaluation of the ICare rebound tonometer as a home intraocular pressure monitoring device,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 74–79, 2011.
[18]
J. M. Martinez-de-la-Casa, J. Garcia-Feijoo, A. Castillo, and J. Garcia-Sanchez, “Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 4578–4580, 2005.
[19]
J. D. Brandt, “The myth of clinical precision,” Ophthalmology, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 1.e1–2.e1, 2009.
[20]
M. M. Whitacre and R. Stein, “Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers,” Survey of Ophthalmology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–30, 1993.
[21]
F. M. C. Grignolo Bongioanni and B. Boles Carenini, “Variations of intraocular pressure induced by psychological stress,” Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde, vol. 170, no. 4, pp. 562–569, 1977.
[22]
C. Erb, S. Brody, and H. Rau, “Influence of mental and physical stress on intraocular pressure—a pilot study,” Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde, vol. 212, no. 5, pp. 270–274, 1998.
[23]
H. S. Ripley and H. G. Wolff, “Life situations, emotions, and glaucoma,” Psychosomatic Medicine, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 215–224, 1950.
[24]
M. A. Kass, “Standardizing the measurement of intraocular pressure for clinical research: guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum,” Ophthalmology, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 183–185, 1996.
[25]
A. Hager and W. Wiegand, “Methods of measuring intraocular pressure independently of central corneal thickness,” Ophthalmologe, vol. 105, no. 9, pp. 840–844, 2008.
[26]
P. Brusini, M. L. Salvetat, M. Zeppieri, C. Tosoni, and L. Parisi, “Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 213–217, 2006.
[27]
L. H. van der Jagt and N. M. Jansonius, “Three portable tonometers, the TGDc-01, the ICARE and the Tonopen XL, compared with each other and with Goldmann applanation tonometry,” Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 429–435, 2005.
[28]
J. M. Martinez-de-la-Casa, J. Garcia-Feijoo, E. Vico et al., “Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and goldmann tonometry,” Ophthalmology, vol. 113, no. 12, pp. 2156–2162, 2006.
[29]
A. Sahin, H. Basmak, L. Niyaz, and N. Yildirim, “Reproducibility and tolerability of the ICare rebound tonometer in school children,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 185–188, 2007.
[30]
W. S. Chui, A. Lam, D. Chen, and R. Chiu, “The influence of corneal properties on rebound tonometry,” Ophthalmology, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 80–84, 2008.
[31]
S. Munkwitz, A. Elkarmouty, E. M. Hoffmann, N. Pfeiffer, and H. Thieme, “Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer over a wide IOP range,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 246, no. 6, pp. 875–879, 2008.
[32]
Y. C. Yu, S. H. Kim, Y. J. Kim, and K. H. Park, “Comparison of the intraocular pressure measurement between rebound tonometer and tonopen in rats,” Journal of Korean Ophthalmological Society, vol. 48, pp. 135–141, 2007.
