PURPOSE: To evaluate corneal viscoelastic and intraocular pressure (IOP) changes measured by an ocular response analyzer (ORA) after phacoemulsification and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.SETTING: Yeditepe University Department of Ophthalmology, Istanbul, Turkey.METHODS: Fifty-one eyes scheduled for cataract surgery were included in the study. Corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc), and Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg) were measured by ORA preoperatively and 1 week and 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured using the ORA's integrated handheld ultrasonic pachymeter. RESULTS:The mean preoperative CCT (537 mm G 46 [SD]) did not change significantly by the end of 1 month postoperatively. The mean preoperative IOPcc (17.2 G 3.0 mm Hg) decreased significantly by 3 months postoperatively (15.2 G 3.7 mm Hg) (P Z .018). The mean CH decreased from 10.36 G 1.48 mm Hg preoperatively to 9.64 G 1.26 mm Hg at 1 week (P Z .028); it increased to preoperative values at the end of 1 month (10.20 G 1.70) and 3 months (10.74 G 1.54) (P>.05). The mean CRF decreased from 10.94 G 2.54 mm Hg preoperatively to 9.99 G 1.77 at 1 week (P Z .026); it increased to preoperative values at 1 month (10.26 G 1.59) and 3 months (10.35 G 1.46) (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although CH and the CRF decreased in the early postoperative period, the parameters increased and reached preoperative values by 3 months postoperatively, showing that corneal biomechanical properties are influenced by phacoemulsification and IOL implantation.

IOP readings detected by DCT and IOP-ORAcc were not found to be clinically interchangeable with GAT and NCT readings. IOP-ORAcc and DCT readings may be regarded as comparable and independent of CCT, in the range of the normal IOP.

Aims: To assess and compare the anterior chamber depth (ACD) by different anterior segment imaging techniques. Methods: Eighty healthy eyes of 40 patients were recruited, and 3 consecutive measurements of ACD were determined prospectively utilizing Visante optical coherence tomography (OCT), slitlamp (SL) OCT, IOL Master, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz. The statistical significance of interdevice differences between measurements was evaluated by one-way ANOVA and Bland-Altman analysis. The repeatability of 3 consecutive measurements was analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA. Results: The mean ACD was 2.98 ± 0.29, 2.85 ± 0.29, 3.33 ± 0.42, 2.93 ± 0.30 and 2.80 ± 0.29 mm with Visante OCT, SL-OCT, IOL Master, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz, respectively. All devices displayed a high intrasession repeatability (repeated-measures ANOVA, p > 0.05). ACD measurements obtained by the IOL Master were significantly greater compared to other devices. ACD values detected by Visante OCT and SL-OCT, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz were not clinically interchangeable, even though no statistically significant difference was detected. Conclusion: Although noncontact ACD measurements using all modalities were easy to handle and demonstrated good repeatability, the tested devices were not regarded as compatible. Hence, the clinician should take the different modalities into consideration during ACD assessment using various devices.

IOPcc readings and recordings of corneal biomechanics were constant throughout the day in healthy eyes. CRF and CH seem to exert different effects on IOPcc as diverse correlations were detected between CRF, CH, and IOPcc. Assessment of IOP and corneal biomechanics using ORA was found to be a highly repeatable.

Although noncontact ACA measurements using all modalities were easy to handle and demonstrated good repeatability in healthy participants, the tested devices were not regarded as comparable. Hence, the clinician should take the different modalities into consideration during ACA assessment using various devices.