1967
DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1967.00980020604007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tonography in Cornea Guttata

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1973
1973
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Buxton et al30 found that the drainage of aqueous outflow was decreased in eyes of FECD patients as compared to normal controls. The study concluded that the trabecular meshwork might be involved in the disease process.…”
Section: What We Knowmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Buxton et al30 found that the drainage of aqueous outflow was decreased in eyes of FECD patients as compared to normal controls. The study concluded that the trabecular meshwork might be involved in the disease process.…”
Section: What We Knowmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Previous studies demonstrate conflicting evidence on the association between FED and OAG. Buxton et al 9 and Kolker and Hetherington 10 reported a connection between corneal guttae of FED and POAG based on a lower facility of outflow and an elevated IOP/outflow facility ratio. Burns et al 11 challenged these findings and in some cases 12 , 13 demonstrated a negative relationship between corneal guttae from FED and elevated IOP.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding the first case, conflicting evidence exists for compromised aqueous outflow in corneal guttata and FED. [37][38][39][40] The second alternative seems less likely because a cornea thickened by DSAEK is expected to require more deformation force and cause an overestimation of IOP, particularly by applanation tonometers that depend on CCT and corneal rigidity. [14][15][16][17][18] Figure 3B provides some support that higher IOP measurements are obtained from thicker grafted corneas (slope = 0.21 6 0.14 mm Hg/10 mm; r 2 = 0.072; P = 0.14).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%