정상 한국인에서 Corvis ST와 골드만압평안압계, 리바운드안압계로 측정한 안압 비교

Comparison of Intraocular Pressures Measured by the Corvis ST and Other Tonometers in Normal Eyes

목적: Corvis ST, 골드만압평안압계(Goldmann applanation tonometer, GAT), 리바운드안압계(Rebound tonometer, RBT)로 측정한 안압을 서로 비교해보고, 측정된 안압과 각막중심두께(central corneal thickness, CCT)와의 상관관계를 알아보았다. 대상과 방법: 정상안 34안을 대상으로 독립된 검사자가 Corvis ST, GAT와 RBT로 안압을 측정하고 안압계별 측정값을 비교하였다. 결과: Corvis ST로 단순 측정한 안압(intraocular pressure measured with Corvis ST, C-IOP)은 14.57 ± 2.37 mmHg로 GAT로 측정한 안압(13.56 ± 2.25 mmHg)과 RBT로 측정한 안압(13.57 ± 3.26 mmHg)보다 유의하게 높은 값을 보였으며(p<0.05), Corvis ST에서 생체물리학적 요소를 반영하여 도출한 안압(biomechanically corrected C-IOP, C-bIOP)은 13.40 ± 2.06 mmHg로 GAT-IOP, RBT-IOP와 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다(p>0.50). CCT와의 상관관계는 RBT-IOP (R=0.34, p=0.05)가 GAT-IOP (R=0.49, p<0.01), C-IOP (R=0.48, p<0.01)에 비해 낮은 상관관계를 보였다. C-bIOP는 CCT와 상관관계를 보이지 않았다(p=0.74). 결론: C-IOP는 RBT-IOP, GAT-IOP보다 유의하게 높았으나, C-bIOP는 RBT-IOP, GAT-IOP와 차이를 보이지 않았다. C-IOP, RBT-IOP, GAT-IOP는 각막두께와 유의한 상관관계를 보였으나 C-bIOP는 유의한 상관관계를 보이지 않았다. 이로 볼 때 Corvis ST로 측정하여 생체물리학적 요소로 보정한 C-bIOP가 임상적으로 유용할 것이라 생각된다.

Purpose: We compared the intraocular pressures (IOPs) measured by the Corvis ST (CST), Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), and Rebound tonometer (RBT) and correlated the measured IOPs with the corneal center thickness (CCT). Methods: The IOPs were measured in 34 eyes of 34 normal subjects using the CST, GAT, and RBT by independent examiners. Comparisons between the IOPs measured by the CST and other tonometers were made using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman plots and Pearson s correlation coefficient was used to correlate the measured IOPs with the CCTs. Results: The IOP measured by the CST (C-IOP; 14.57 ± 2.37 mmHg) was significantly higher than that measured by the GAT (13.56 ± 2.25 mmHg) and RBT (13.57 ± 3.26 mmHg) (p < 0.05). The biomechanically corrected C-IOP (C-bIOP; 13.40 ± 2.06 mmHg) showed no difference from the GAT-IOP and RBT-IOP (p > 0.50). In analyzing the correlation with CCT, RBT-IOP (R = 0.34; p = 0.05) showed a lower correlation than the GAT-IOP (R = 0.49; p < 0.01) and C-IOP (R = 0.48; p < 0.01). The C-bIOP showed no correlation with the CCT (p = 0.74). Conclusions: The IOP measurements using the C-IOP were significantly higher than the RBT-IOP and GAT-IOP but the C-bIOP showed no difference from the RBT-IOP and GAT-IOP. C-IOP, RBT-IOP, and GAT-IOP were significantly correlated with corneal thickness, but there was no correlation between CCT and C-bIOP. C-bIOP may therefore be considered clinically useful.