4.1 Article

Evaluation of a Contact Lens-Embedded Sensor for Intraocular Pressure Measurement

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA
卷 19, 期 6, 页码 382-390

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181c4ac3d

关键词

contact lens; pressure sensor; intraocular pressure; tonometry

资金

  1. NIH/NEI [K23EY016625]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate a novel contact lens-embedded pressure sensor for continuous measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP). Methods: Repeated measurements of IOP and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) were recorded in 12 eyes of 12 subjects in sitting and supine positions using 3 configurations of the dynamic contour tonometer: slit-lamp mounted (DCT), hand-held (HH), and contact lens-embedded sensor (CL). The IOP and OPA for each condition were compared using repeated measures ANOVA and the 95% limits of agreement were calculated. Results: The sitting IOP (mean and 95% CI) for each configuration was DCT: 16.3mm Hg (15.6 to 17.1 mm Hg), HH: 16.6 mm Hg (15.6 to 17.6 mm Hg), and CL: 15.7 mm Hg (15 to 16.3mm Hg). The sitting OPA for each configuration was DCT: 2.4 mm Hg (2.1 to 2.6 mm Hg), HH: 2.4 mm Hg (2.1 to 2.7 mm Hg), and CL: 2.1 mm Hg (1.8 to 2.3 mm Hg). Supine IOP and OPA measurements with the CL and HH sensors were both greater than their corresponding sitting measurements, but were significantly less with the CL sensor than the HH sensor. The mean difference and 95% Limits of Agreement were smallest for the DCT and CL sensor comparisons (0.7 +/- 3.9mm Hg) and widest for the CL and HH sensors (-1.9 +/- 7.25 mm Hg); these wider limits were attributed to greater HH measurement variability. Conclusions: The CL sensor was comparable to HH and DCT sensors with sitting subjects and is a viable method for measuring IOP and OPA. Supine measurements of IOP and OPA were greater than sitting conditions and were comparatively lower with the CL sensor. HH measurements were more variable than CL measurements and this influenced the Limits of Agreement for both sitting and supine conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据