Comparison of the Icare ic100 Rebound Tonometer and the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in 1,000 Eyes.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) forms a crucial component in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Many devices have been developed to measure IOP with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) considered the gold standard for IOP measurement. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare the IOP measured using Icare ic100 and GAT. METHODS: This cross-sectional study measured IOP in 1,000 eyes (500 left and 500 right) using the Icare ic100 and GAT. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured using a hand-held pachymeter. IOP measurements were investigated in all eyes, by IOP substrata, by CCT group, by number of topical glaucoma medications, and diagnosis. RESULTS: There was moderate agreement between ic100 and GAT IOP measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.73). Mean IOP was significantly lower when measured by ic100 than by GAT (12.1 vs. 16.2 mm Hg, p < 0.0001). Mean ic100 IOPs were also significantly lower than mean GAT IOPs within each IOP strata ≤12 (7.9 vs. 9.7 mm Hg, p < 0.0001), 13-21 (12.1 vs. 16.6 mm Hg, p < 0.0001), and ≥22 (18.4 vs. 25.2 mm Hg, p < 0.0001) and within each subanalysis. CONCLUSIONS: The Icare tonometer consistently under estimated IOP compared to GAT, irrespective of CCT ranges and other subgroup analyses. The mean difference of 4.2 mm Hg can have significant clinical implications, particularly in the management of glaucoma patients.

Quadriceps Tendon Versus Hamstring Tendon Autografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Autograft choice in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) remains controversial, with increasing interest in the usage of quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft versus traditional hamstring tendon (HT) use. The current study undertakes an in-depth review and comparison of the clinical and functional outcomes of QT and HT autografts in ACLR. HYPOTHESIS: The QT autograft is equivalent to the HT autograft and there will be little or no significant difference in the outcomes between these 2 autografts. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: The PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases were systematically searched from their inception until November 2020. All observational studies comparing ACLR QT and HT autografts were assessed for their methodological quality. Patient outcomes were compared according to patient-reported outcome measures (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Cincinnati, Lysholm, Tegner, and visual analog scale [VAS] measures), knee extensor and flexor torque limb symmetry indices (LSIs), hamstring to quadriceps (H/Q) ratios, functional hop capacity, knee laxity, ipsilateral graft failure, and contralateral injury. RESULTS: A total of 20 observational studies comprising 28,621 patients (QT = 2550; HT = 26,071) were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. In comparison with patients who received an HT autograft, those who received a QT autograft had similar postoperative Lysholm (mean difference [MD], 0.67; P = .630), IKDC (MD, 0.48; P = .480), VAS pain (MD, 0.04; P = .710), and Cincinnati (MD, -0.85; P = .660) scores; LSI for knee flexor strength (MD, 6.06; P = .120); H/Q ratio (MD, 3.22; P = .160); hop test LSI (MD, -1.62; P = .230); pivot-shift test grade 0 (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; P = .180); Lachman test grade 0 (OR, 2.38; P = .320), side-to-side laxity (MD, 0.09; P = .650); incidence of graft failure (OR, 1.07; P = .830) or contralateral knee injury (OR, 1.22; P = .610); and Tegner scores (MD, 0.11; P = .060). HT autografts were associated with a higher (better) side-to-side LSI for knee extensor strength (MD, -6.31; P = .0002). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, the use of the QT autograft was equivalent to the HT autograft in ACLR, with comparable graft failure and clinical and functional outcomes observed. However, HT autografts were associated with better LSI knee extensor strength.