About this Research Topic
It is well known that intraocular pressure (IOP) represents the only treatable glaucoma risk factor in clinical practice, and the IOP measurement is crucial not only in the diagnosis and in management of glaucoma, but it is also essential in the post-operative management of corneal, cataract and vitreo-retinal surgeries and to help the detection of several rare diseases.
Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), based on the so called Imbert-Fick law, is the gold standard for IOP measurement. However, central corneal thickness (CCT), curvature (Km), and structure, among the others, can influence its accuracy. It is well known that after corneal refractive procedures, the GAT measurements are absolutely unreliable. To obtain more reliable GAT values, several experimental and theoretical calculation-based studies have elaborated correcting formulas, based upon different parameters influencing GAT readings, such as corneal CCT, Km and other confounding variables.
Several factors can make the IOP evaluation unreliable, such as after corneal or anterior segment surgery. Some authors have tried to overcome this issue by testing several formulas, however the results are controversial and they should be compared with the true IOP value, measurable in vivo with an invasive technique which is inexecutable in ordinary clinical practice. Therefore, the aim of this Research Topic is to discuss the pros and cons of different techniques, with particular consideration of IOP evaluation in challenging cases such as patients who have undergone corneal or anterior segment surgery.
Areas of interest include, but are not limited to:
• Consideration of current techniques for IOP evaluation;
• Consideration of confounding parameters in IOP evaluation;
• Development or suggestions for novel techniques;
• Consideration of technological advancements in IOP evaluation;
• Cases of IOP evaluation in challenging situations or populations.
All article types are welcome to be submitted to this collection.
Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), based on the so called Imbert-Fick law, is the gold standard for IOP measurement. However, central corneal thickness (CCT), curvature (Km), and structure, among the others, can influence its accuracy. It is well known that after corneal refractive procedures, the GAT measurements are absolutely unreliable. To obtain more reliable GAT values, several experimental and theoretical calculation-based studies have elaborated correcting formulas, based upon different parameters influencing GAT readings, such as corneal CCT, Km and other confounding variables.
Several factors can make the IOP evaluation unreliable, such as after corneal or anterior segment surgery. Some authors have tried to overcome this issue by testing several formulas, however the results are controversial and they should be compared with the true IOP value, measurable in vivo with an invasive technique which is inexecutable in ordinary clinical practice. Therefore, the aim of this Research Topic is to discuss the pros and cons of different techniques, with particular consideration of IOP evaluation in challenging cases such as patients who have undergone corneal or anterior segment surgery.
Areas of interest include, but are not limited to:
• Consideration of current techniques for IOP evaluation;
• Consideration of confounding parameters in IOP evaluation;
• Development or suggestions for novel techniques;
• Consideration of technological advancements in IOP evaluation;
• Cases of IOP evaluation in challenging situations or populations.
All article types are welcome to be submitted to this collection.
Keywords: intraocular pressure, corneal refractive surgery, corneal transplantation, anterior segment surgery, Goldmann tonometry, dynamic contour tonometry
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
