Background:  The aim was to evaluate anterior segment parameters in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PXS) or pseudoexfoliative glaucoma (PXG) with the Pentacam‐Scheimpflug imaging system. Methods:  Eighty eyes of 53 patients with PXS (Group 1), 80 eyes of 57 patients with PXG (Group 2) and 80 eyes of 45 control cases (Group 3) were included in the study. Anterior chamber depth, volume (ACV), angle (ACA) width, central corneal thickness (CCT), central 3.0, 5.0 and 7.0 mm corneal volumes and pupil diameters were compared between groups. Results:  Although anterior chamber depths in the PXG group were significantly lower than the control group (p < 0.05), there was no statistically significant difference between the PXS group and the control group in means of anterior chamber depth values (p > 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences among PXS, PXG and the control group in mean values of ACV, ACA width, CCT, pupil diameters and central 3.0, 5.0 and 7.0 mm corneal volume (p > 0.05). Conclusions:  The anterior chamber depths of PXG patients were lower than those of healthy individuals. Although the difference in anterior chamber depth between PXG patients and normal patients was statistically significant, this finding is unlikely to be of clinical significance. The anterior chamber depths of PXS patients were similar to those of healthy individuals. There were no significant differences in the means of ACV, ACA width, CCT, pupil diameter and corneal volume values on central 3.0, 5.0 and 7.0 mm among patients with PXS, PXG and healthy individuals.

SD-OCT evaluation results suggest higher GCC and RNFL parameters for NTG than POAG.

Brown tumour can develop in severe, long-standing vitamin D deficiency rickets and responds to vitamin D treatment.

Purpose To evaluate the influence of silicone hydrogel contact lenses on the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), non-contact tonometry (NCT), and Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT). Methods We included in the study 40 eyes of 40 patients who did not have any ocular or systemic diseases or contraindications to contact lens use. We measured and recorded the IOP values of each patient using NCT without and with contact lenses (groups 1 and 2, respectively), using DCT without and with contact lenses (groups 3 and 4, respectively), and using GAT without contact lenses (group 5). Results The mean IOP value of group 1 was 14.55±2.95 mm Hg and 13.92±2.58 mm Hg in group 2. We detected no statistically significant difference between group 1 and group 2 (P ¼ 0.053). The mean IOP values for group 3 and group 4 were 16.26 ± 2.33 mm Hg and 15.19 ± 2.40 mm Hg, respectively. We detected a statistically significant difference between groups 3 and 4 (P ¼ 0.005).

Purpose To measure corneal hysteresis and intraocular pressure (IOP)

No abstract

The results of this study suggest that under a short period of exposure, 3G mobile phone radiation does not lead to harmful effects on eye tissue and blood in rats.

Background: Accurate intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement is important but of unsure reliability in patients with keratoconus. Different types and models of tonometers are available. This study investigated the influence of corneal parameters on IOP readings obtained by a Goldmann applanation tonometer, a non-contact tonometer and a dynamic contour tonometer. Methods: IOP readings with the Goldmann applanation, non-contact and dynamic contour tonometers were obtained from 52 patients with keratoconus and from 50 normal subjects and their corneal parameters were measured using a Pentacam. Results:The mean IOP measurements in keratoconus obtained with the Goldmann applanation, non-contact and dynamic contour tonometers were statistically significantly different from the mean IOP measurements in the normal subjects (p < 0.0001; p < 0.005; p < 0.0001, respectively). In the keratoconus group, the thinnest corneal thickness (TCT), steepest keratometry, the corneal curvature (CC), central corneal thickness (CCT) and the posterior corneal curvature (PCC) had a significant effect on the Goldmann applanation and noncontact tonometers but not on the dynamic contour tonometer. In the control group, thinnest and central corneal thicknesses had a significant effect on findings with the Goldmann and non-contact tonometers but not on the dynamic contour tonometer. The corneal volume (CV) had no significant effect on the three tonometers in both groups. Conclusions:The corneal parameters affecting the IOP readings of the Goldmann applanation tonometers, non-contact tonometers and the dynamic contour tonometers are not the same. While the Goldmann applanation and non-contact tonometers were significantly affected by the corneal parameters that were measured, the dynamic contour tonometer was not affected by any of these corneal parameters.