首页> 外文期刊>Investigative ophthalmology & visual science >Comparison of Aqueous Outflow Facility Measurement by Pneumatonography and Digital Schi??tz Tonography
【24h】

Comparison of Aqueous Outflow Facility Measurement by Pneumatonography and Digital Schi??tz Tonography

机译:肺动脉造影和数字Schitz层析成像测量水流出设施的比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Purpose: It is not known if outflow facilities measured by pneumatonography and Schi??tz tonography are interchangeable. In this study we compared outflow facility measured by pneumatonography to outflow facility measured by digital Schi??tz tonography. Methods: 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 Schi??tz 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. Results: The outflow facility was 0.29 ?± 0.09 ??L/min/mm Hg by Schi??tz tonography and 0.24 ?± 0.08 ??L/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 ??La??1, and outflow facility determined by using this coefficient was 0.23 ?± 0.08 ??L/min/mm Hg by Schi??tz tonography and 0.21 ?± 0.07 ??L/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). Conclusions: Outflow facilities measured by pneumatonography were correlated with those measured by Schi??tz tonography, but Schi??tz 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.
机译:目的:尚不知道通过肺动脉造影和Schi?tz血管造影测量的流出设施是否可以互换。在这项研究中,我们比较了通过肺动脉造影测量的流出设施与通过数字Schitztz层析成像测量的流出设施。方法:纳入来自28位年龄在41至68岁的健康参与者的56眼。眼压(IOP)是通过气压计测量坐位和仰卧位的。在受试者处于仰卧位的情况下,使用重量为10 g的气压计记录IOP 2分钟,并使用定制的数字Schitztz眼压计记录IOP 4分钟。分别根据每种仪器的压力和眼内体积的变化以及标准假定的眼刚度系数,以及通过使用在不增加气压和增加气压的情况下测量压力而计算出的眼刚度系数,确定流出设施。结果:使用标准假设常数时,Schi?tz眼压成像法的流出设施为0.29±±0.09ΔL/ min / mm Hg,肺气管造影术为0.24≤±0.08ΔL/ min / mm Hg(P <0.001)眼刚度系数。平均算出的眼球刚度系数为0.028Ω±0.01Ω·La·λ1,使用该系数确定的流出设施经Schi tztz断层摄影术测定为0.23Ω±0.08Ω·L / min / mm Hg,0.21Ω±0.07Ω。肺动脉造影测定ΔL/ min / mm Hg(P = 0.003)。当假定眼刚度(r = 0.60,P <0.001)或计算出眼部刚度(r = 0.70,P <0.001)时,通过这两种设备测量的流出设施相关。结论:通过肺动脉造影测量的流出设施与通过Schi?tz血管造影测量的流出设施相关,但使用标准方法时,Schi?tz血管造影显示的流出设施高出约10%至20%。当确定每只眼睛的眼部刚度时,差异较小。这些设备的测量结果无法直接进行比较。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号