ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Med.
Sec. Ophthalmology
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1605641
This article is part of the Research TopicIntraocular Pressure Evaluation and Confounding ParametersView all 3 articles
Intraocular pressure and ocular biomechanical parameters vary between generations of the Ocular Response Analyzer in healthy and ectatic eyes
Provisionally accepted
- The Ohio State University, Columbus, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
This study evaluated the agreement between a third-generation (G3) Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and a first-generation (G1) ORA and tested the ability of keratoconus match index (KMI) to identify keratoconus. Healthy participants (n = 149 eyes) and participants with keratoconus (n = 78 eyes) were enrolled. Four measurements were taken bilaterally using the G1 and G3 ORA. Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (IOPg), corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc), corneal hysteresis (CH), waveform score, KMI, and waveform parameters p1area, p2area, w1, w2, h1, and h2 were recorded from the measurement with the highest waveform score in the left eye. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests assessed agreement between the devices, and receiver-operating characteristic curves determined the ability of KMI to identify eyes with keratoconus. There was no difference in IOPcc or IOPg between the devices in both cohorts. CH was significantly greater for the G3 than for the G1 in healthy participants but not in keratoconus. For both cohorts, measurements of waveform score, KMI, p1area, p2area w2, h1, and h2 were greater for the G3 than for the G1. Only w1 was smaller for the G3 than for the G1. There was no difference in the ability of KMI to differentiate ectatic from healthy eyes between the devices. Although the G1 and G3 can identify keratoconus using KMI, there is meaningful variation between them in IOP and biomechanical outcome parameters. Thus, clinicians and researchers should compare results between the devices with caution and should state which generation produced the data.
Keywords: Intraocular Pressure, Corneal hysteresis, Waveform parameters, Tonometry, Keratoconus, Cornea
Received: 03 Apr 2025; Accepted: 03 Jul 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Yuhas, Fortman, Nye, Mahmoud and Roberts. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Phillip Thomas Yuhas, The Ohio State University, Columbus, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.