RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to compare the central corneal thickness (CCT) measured by an ultrasonic pachymeter (SP-100, Tomey, Japão) versus the Galilei G6™ (Ziemer Ophthalmics System AG, Port, Switzerland) and to compare the simulated keratometry (SimK) measured by an autokeratometer (KM 500 Nidek) versus the Galilei G6™. ANIMAL STUDIED: Eighteen mixed-breed cats, 10 males, and eight females, aged between 18 and 48 months, were evaluated (n = 36 eyes). PROCEDURE(S): The cats were manually restrained using a blanket. The operator held the autokeratometer close to the eye and measured the SimK. Next, one anesthetic eye drop was applied; the operator lightly touched the corneal using the ultrasound pachymeter and measured the CCT. At another moment, the cats were sedated using meperidine and xylazine and then evaluated using the Galilei. Student's t-test was employed to perform the statistical analyzes. RESULTS: Considering the CCT, the ultrasound pachymeter provided mean ± SD of 623.03 ± 48.17 µm and the Galilei 617.34 ± 53.38 µm. The autokeratometer produced a SimK of 38.20 ± 0.84D (8.84 ± 0.20 mm) and the Galilei 38.37 ± 0.83D (8.80 ± 0.19 mm). The CCT and SimK did not differ statistically regardless of the device used. CONCLUSION: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first work to compare the CCT measured by the Galilei versus the ultrasonic pachymeter and to compare the SimK measured by the Galilei versus the keratometer in cats. No statistical difference was found considering the CCT and the SimK measured by the different devices.
Assuntos
Córnea , Ultrassom , Masculino , Feminino , Gatos , Animais , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Estudos Prospectivos , Córnea/diagnóstico por imagem , Ultrassonografia/veterináriaRESUMO
RESUMO Objetivo: Comparar o resultado entre dois tipos de tonômetros, tendo como padrão ouro a tonometria de aplanação, relacionando com a espessura corneana e suas validações como instrumentos de rastreio populacional. Métodos: Estudo transversal comparativo, realizado com 400 olhos do ambulatório de oftalmologia da Adachi Oftalmologia, em Macapá (Amapá), entre os valores médios da pressão ocular medidos pelo tonômetro Icare®, o Tonômetro Pneumático e o Tonômetro de Aplanação de Goldmann em função da espessura corneana. Foram divididos conforme a ECC em 3 grupos. Grupo 1: 260 olhos com ECC< 530µ; grupo 2: 217 olhos com ECC entre 530µ e 590µ; e, grupo 3: 157 olhos com ECC>590µ. Resultados: A ECC média obtida na paquimetria foi de 557µ, variando de 651µ a 477µ (desvio padrão de 32.9). A PIO média obtida pela TP foi de 19,4 mmHg (com desvio padrão de 2,32); pelo Icare® foi de 16,7mmHg (desvio padrão de 2,12); e, na TAG foi de 15.5 mmHg (desvio padrão de 2,02). Para paquimetrias inferiores a 530µ e superiores a 590µ a PIOm não diferiu significativamente entre a TAG e Icare® (p = 0,232), sendo estatisticamente significativa diferença obtida para córneas com ECC entre 530 e 590 µ. A PIOm obtida pelo TP foi significativamente maior do que a pressão ocular média dos TAG e Icare® (p < 0,001 para ambos) em todos os grupos. Conclusões: Os três métodos podem ser utilizados em campanhas de rastreamento, porém o Icare® se mostrou mais confiável que a TP, com valores obtidos estatisticamente mais confiáveis quando comparados à TP. Existe suficiente concordância entre o Icare e a TAG para recomendar o seu uso.
ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the result between two types of tonometres, using as gold standard the aplanation tonometry, relating to the corneal thickness and its validations as instruments of population screening. Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was carried out with 400 eyes from the ophthalmology clinic of Adachi Ophthalmology, in Macapá (Amapá), between the mean values of ocular pressure measured by the Icare® tonometro, the Pneumatic Tonometer and the Goldmann Flattening Tonometro as a function of corneal thickness. They were divided according to ECC in 3 groups. Group 1: 260 eyes with ECC <530µ; group 2: 217 eyes with ECC between 530µ and 590µ; and, group 3: 157 eyes with ECC> 590µ. Results: The mean ECC obtained in pachymetry was 557µ, ranging from 651µ to 477µ (standard deviation of 32.9). The mean IOP obtained by PT was 19.4 mmHg (with a standard deviation of 2.32); by Icare® was 16.7mmHg (standard deviation of 2.12); and in the TAG it was 15.5 mmHg (standard deviation of 2.02). For pachymetry less than 530µ and greater than 590µ, PIOm did not differ significantly between TAG and Icare® (p = 0.232), and a statistically significant difference was obtained for corneas with ECC between 530 and 590 µ. The IOP obtained by the PT was significantly higher than the mean ocular pressure of the TAG and Icare® (p <0.001 for both) in all groups. Conclusions: All three methods can be used in screening campaigns, but Icare® proved to be more reliable than TP, with values obtained statistically more reliable when compared to TP. There is sufficient agreement between Icare and TAG to recommend its use.