For a study, researchers sought to understand that Corneal biomechanics revealed a distinct influence on various types of tonometers. The purpose of this study was to look into the accuracy of Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), rebound tonometry (RT), ocular response analyzer (ORA), Corvis ST (CST), and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in determining IOP after myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). This retrospective comparative study included 1 eye from 145 patients with myopic PRK for a refractive defect ranging from –10.25 to −0.50 D (mean –4.79±2.00 D). Before surgery and at 1, 3, and 6 months follow-up, a complete eye visit with corneal tomography and IOP measurement with GAT, DCT, ORA, RT, and CST was performed. At each follow-up, the values provided by each device were tested and compared. After PRK, correlation analyses were performed between changes in IOP and corneal, morphologic, and biomechanical parameters. At 6 months, GAT, DCT, ORA, RT, and CST all showed a significant (P<0.01) underestimation of IOP. GAT had the greatest underestimation (−14.1%) and the strongest correlations with changes in corneal deformation parameters, whereas ORA, DCT, and RT appeared to be less influenced by these changes. DCT, ORA, RT, and CST provided IOP values with nonsignificant differences at 6 months follow-up compared to GAT before PRK. After myopic PRK, each tonometer tested showed a significant IOP underestimation. Investigators recommend DCT, ORA, RT, or CST to evaluate IOP in these patients following surgery because this was most commonly observed with GAT compared to all other devices.

Source:journals.lww.com/glaucomajournal/Fulltext/2022/06000/Evaluating_Intraocular_Pressure_After_Myopic.6.aspx