Comparison of four tonometers in the measurement of intraocular pressure in healthy horses

Angeluci, Gismelli C; Ricci, C; Passareli, João Victor Goulart Consoni; Estanho, Giovana José Garcia; Oliveira, Adriana S; Santos, Stephany G A; Giuffrida, Rogério; Rodrigues, Marcos Sales; Andrade, Silvia Franco

doi:10.1111/evj.13911

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For Horse B intraocular pressure ranged between 12-22 mmHg for the right control eye and 14-19 mmHg for the left MSC injected eye. Normal horse Tonovet Plus measurements can range from 13.2-33.2 mmHg, when gold standard manometer pressures range between 20-30 mmHg (47). All other ocular parameters remained stable throughout the study.…”

Section: Ophthalmic Examinationsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Preliminary evaluation of safety and migration of immune activated mesenchymal stromal cells administered by subconjunctival injection for equine recurrent uveitis

Cassano,

Leonard,

Martins

et al. 2023

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionEquine recurrent uveitis (ERU), an immune mediated disease characterized by repeated episodes of intra-ocular inflammation, affects 25% of horses in the USA and is the most common cause of glaucoma, cataracts, and blindness. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have immunomodulatory properties, which are upregulated by preconditioning with toll-like receptor agonists. The objective was to evaluate safety and migration of TLR-3 agonist polyinosinic, polycytidylic acid (pIC)-activated MSCs injected subconjunctivally in healthy horses prior to clinical application in horses with ERU. We hypothesized that activated allogeneic MSCs injected subconjunctivally would not induce ocular or systemic inflammation and would remain in the conjunctiva for >14 days.MethodsBulbar subconjunctiva of two horses was injected with 10 × 106 pIC-activated (10 μg/mL, 2 h) GFP-labeled MSCs from one donor three times at two-week intervals. Vehicle (saline) control was injected in the contralateral conjunctiva. Horses received physical and ophthalmic exams [slit lamp biomicroscopy, rebound tonometry, fundic examination, and semiquantitative preclinical ocular toxicology scoring (SPOTS)] every 1–3 days. Systemic inflammation was assessed via CBC, fibrinogen, and serum amyloid A (SAA). Horses were euthanized 14 days following final injection. Full necropsy and histopathology were performed to examine ocular tissues and 36 systemic organs for MSC presence via IVIS Spectrum. Anti-GFP immunohistochemistry was performed on ocular tissues.ResultsNo change in physical examinations was noted. Bloodwork revealed fibrinogen 100-300 mg/dL (ref 100–400) and SAA 0–25 μg/mL (ref 0–20). Ocular effects of the subjconjucntival injection were similar between MSC and control eyes on SPOTS grading system, with conjunctival hypermia, chemosis and ocular discharge noted bilaterally, which improved without intervention within 14 days. All other ocular parameters were unaffected throughout the study. Necropsy and histopathology revealed no evidence of systemic inflammation. Ocular histopathology was similar between MSC and control eyes. Fluorescent imaging analysis did not locate MSCs. Immunohistochemistry did not identify intact MSCs in the conjunctiva, but GFP-labeled cellular components were present in conjunctival phagocytic cells.DiscussionAllogeneic pIC-activated conjunctival MSC injections were well tolerated. GFP-labeled tracking identified MSC components phagocytosed by immune cells subconjunctivally. This preliminary safety and tracking information is critical towards advancing immune conditioned cellular therapies to clinical trials in horses.

show abstract

Section: Ophthalmic Examinationsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Preliminary evaluation of safety and migration of immune activated mesenchymal stromal cells administered by subconjunctival injection for equine recurrent uveitis

Cassano,

Leonard,

Martins

et al. 2023

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lewin et al found decreased inter‐user and intra‐user variation with the TonoVet when compared with the Tono‐Pen in unsedated horses 3 . A recent study in horses with normal eyes showed no difference in intraocular pressure measurements between the TonoVet and Tonovet Plus or the Tonovet Plus and Tono‐Pen Avia Vet, however, there was a significant difference between the TonoVet and Tono‐Pen Avia Vet 11 . For these reasons, rebound tonometers may be the preferred instrument in equine practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Four additional horses were included in the sample size to account for possible loss of data during the study period. 11 Fifty adult, privately owned horses (100 eyes) were included. Horses that would require patient sedation or topical proparacaine to facilitate performing tonometry were excluded from the study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A sample size calculation was performed based on the results found by Angeluci et al (power of 0.8 and an α ‐error of 0.05) showing that 46 horses/92 eyes would be needed to detect acceptable agreement between the tested devices. Four additional horses were included in the sample size to account for possible loss of data during the study period 11 . Fifty adult, privately owned horses (100 eyes) were included.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 A recent study in horses with normal eyes showed no difference in intraocular pressure measurements between the TonoVet and Tonovet Plus or the Tonovet Plus and Tono-Pen Avia Vet, however, there was a significant difference between the TonoVet and Tono-Pen Avia Vet. 11 For these reasons, rebound tonometers may be the preferred instrument in equine practice. In the current study similar conclusions were found with the TonoVet and the Tonovet Plus having the strongest agreement.…”

Section: F I G U R Ementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of three methods of tonometry in horses presented for ophthalmic disease

Latham,

Scherrer,

Stefanovski

2023

Veterinary Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo compare the measurement of intraocular pressure in horses with clinical ocular disease using three tonometry devices.Animals StudiedA total of fifty horses were presented to the New Bolton Center Ophthalmology Service.ProcedureIntraocular pressure was taken on 50 client‐owned horses (100 eyes) using the TonoVet, TonoVet Plus and Tono‐Pen Avia tonometers. Clinical equine patients included were presented to New Bolton Center for ophthalmic examination. Auriculopalpebral blocks were performed but horses were unsedated.ResultsAll three tonometers were found to have strong agreement among them. The strongest agreement was between the TonoVet and the TonoVet Plus with the TonoVet on average 1.330 mmHg less than the TonoVet Plus (standard deviation 4.388 mmHg). This was followed by the TonoVet and the Tono‐Pen Avia Vet with the TonoVet on average 2.531 mmHg greater than the Tono‐Pen Avia Vet (standard deviation 4.124 mmHg). The weakest agreement was between the TonoVet Plus and the Tono‐Pen Avia with the TonoVet Plus on average 3.854 mmHg greater than the Tono‐Pen Avia (standard deviation 4.724 mmHg).ConclusionsAll three tonometers showed strong agreement, however, the TonoVet and the TonoVet Plus carried the strongest agreement with the TonoVet Plus having slightly higher measurements overall compared with the TonoVet. Due to small variations between devices, it is recommended that the same device be used for serial measurements of intraocular pressure. However, all three devices are appropriate to use in horses presented for ophthalmic evaluation.

show abstract

Comparing the effects of intraocular pressure and tear production measurements in horses in two different environments: Horse stable and medical barn

Cinar,

Yanmaz,

Buyukkaraca

et al. 2024

Equine Veterinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo date, there are no studies on the impact of two distinct environments—one familiar to the horse and another unfamiliar—on intraocular pressure (IOP) and tear production.ObjectivesTo compare the measured IOP and tear production values in horses between a horse stable and a medical barn.Study designCross‐over.MethodsThirty healthy male Arabian horses, aged 6.88 ± 3.34 years were used. IOP and tear production measurements were assessed in both the horse stable and the medical barn, with a paired Student's t‐test and Bland–Altman analysis conducted for comparison and agreement, respectively.ResultsA significant increase in IOP was observed in the medical barn (34.2 ± 6.8 mmHg) compared with the horse stable (29.5 ± 7.2 mmHg, p = 0.02). However, no statistically significant difference in tear production was found between horse stable (22.1 ± 2.8 mm/min) and medical barn (23.6 ± 3.4 mm/min) (p = 0.09). The standard error of the slope was 0.36 for the IOP measured in the medical barn, indicating a difference of −4.7 mmHg compared with the IOP measured in the horse stable (p = 0.02). The bias was fitted to y = −7.9350 + 0.1003x. The standard error of the slope was 0.39 for the tear production measured in the medical barn, indicating a difference of −1.5 mm/min compared with the tear production measured in the horse stable (p = 0.09). The bias was fitted to y = 6.1530 + −0.3367x.Main limitationsThe absence of horses with ocular disorders and an assessment of the potential impact of transportation.ConclusionsA notable increase in IOP was observed in the medical barn compared with the horse stable, while tear production exhibited no significant variance between the two environments. The Bland–Altman analysis highlighted a discrepancy in IOP measurements in the horse stable, emphasising the potential influence of the environment on ocular parameters in horses.

show abstract

Comparison of four tonometers in the measurement of intraocular pressure in healthy horses

Cited by 4 publications

References 26 publications

Preliminary evaluation of safety and migration of immune activated mesenchymal stromal cells administered by subconjunctival injection for equine recurrent uveitis

Preliminary evaluation of safety and migration of immune activated mesenchymal stromal cells administered by subconjunctival injection for equine recurrent uveitis

Comparison of three methods of tonometry in horses presented for ophthalmic disease

Comparing the effects of intraocular pressure and tear production measurements in horses in two different environments: Horse stable and medical barn

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About