The preoperative intraocular pressure level predicts the amount of underestimated intraocular pressure after LASIK for myopia

37Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the statistical significance of the parameters that affect underestimation of intraocular pressure (IOP) after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia. Methods: In this prospective case series study, patient age, axial length, preoperative corneal curvature, preoperative central corneal thickness (CCT), preoperative IOP, and ablation depth were studied to determine whether they affect the underestimation of IOP in the right eyes of 100 consecutive patients who underwent LASIK. Results: The preoperative IOP was the most important parameter for an amount of underestimated Goldmann applanation tonometric IOP (GAT) and non-contact tonometric IOP (ncIOP) at 1 month (r=0.654, p<0.0001, R2=0.427, and r=0.694, p<0.0001, R2=0.481, respectively) and 3 months (r=0.637, p<0.0001, R 2=0.406, and r=0.726, p<0.0001, R2=0.527, respectively). Patient age was statistically significant for underestimating the GAT at 1 month, and both the ablation depth and CCT were statistically significant parameters for underestimating the ncIOP at 1 month and at 3 months by stepwise multiple regression analysis (F>4.000). However, these parameters had small bivariate correlation coefficients, and were considered as minor parameters. Conclusion: Preoperative IOP is the most important parameter that affects an underestimation of IOP after LASIK for myopia. Eyes with a higher true IOP have a larger underestimation of the IOP after LASIK for myopia. From these results, the importance of the modulus of elasticity on IOP measurements was discussed.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chihara, E., Takahashi, H., Okazaki, K., Park, M., & Tanito, M. (2005). The preoperative intraocular pressure level predicts the amount of underestimated intraocular pressure after LASIK for myopia. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 89(2), 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2004.048074

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free