DESIGN: A cross-sectional, non-interventional study.
METHODS: The IOP measurements by handheld Icare rebound tonometer (Finland) were first performed by a primary care physician. Then the IOP was measured using Perkins Mk3 applanation tonometer (Haag-Streit, UK) by an ophthalmologist who was masked to previous readings from the Icare rebound tonometer. The mean IOP measured by each tonometer was compared. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to explore the correlation between the IOP measurements of the 2 instruments. The level of agreement between them was assessed using the Bland and Altman method.
RESULTS: A total of 420 left eyes were examined. The mean age of subjects was 38.6 ± 18.2 years. Approximately 67% of subjects were female. The mean IOP was 16.3 ± 4.0 mm Hg using Icare and 13.4 ± 2.3 mm Hg using PAT. Pearson correlation coefficient showed a moderate positive correlation between the 2 methods (r = +0.524, P < 0.001). Linear regression analysis revealed a slope of 0.28 with R² of 0.255. The mean difference between the 2 methods was 2.90 ± 3.5 mm Hg and the sample t-test revealed a statistically significant mean difference from 0 (P < 0.001). The 95% limits of agreement between the 2 methods were between -9.73 and 3.93 mm Hg.
CONCLUSIONS: The handheld Icare rebound tonometer is a reasonably acceptable screening tool in community practices. However, Icare overestimated IOP with a mean of 2.90 mm Hg higher than the PAT. Thus, using Goldmann applanation tonometer as a confirmatory measurement tool of IOP is suggested.
METHODS: We evaluated the performance characteristics of the LMA Protector™ in 30 unparalysed, moderately obese patients. First attempt insertion rate, time for insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), and incidence of complications were recorded.
RESULTS: We found high first and second attempt insertion rates of 28(93%) and 1(33%) respectively, with one failed attempt where no capnography trace could be detected, presumably from a downfolded device tip. The LMA Protector™ was inserted rapidly in 21.0(4.0) seconds and demonstrated high OLP of 31.8(5.4) cmH2O. Fibreoptic assessment showed a clear view of vocal cords in 93%. The incidence of blood staining on removal of device was 48%, postoperative sore throat 27%, dysphagia 10% and dysphonia 20% (all self-limiting, resolving a few hours postoperatively).
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the LMA Protector™ was associated with easy, expedient first attempt insertion success, demonstrating high oropharyngeal pressures and good anatomical position in the moderately obese population, with relatively low postoperative airway morbidity.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617001152314 . Registered 7 August 2017.
METHODS: This article was divided into the following parts: Part 1 Surface roughness and substance loss: an in vitro study, which involves intact extracted teeth sectioned and treated using a piezoelectric ultrasonic device (PM200 EMS Piezon, Switzerland) with a conventional scaler tip (FS-407) and a Perio Slim (PS) scaler tip (Perio Slim DS-016A). All sectioned samples for tooth surface roughness (n = 20) and tooth substance loss (n = 46) analyses were measured and compared using a 3D surface texture analyser and scanning electron microscope (SEM) respectively, at baseline and following scaling. Part 2 Pain Perception: a clinical study, which was a split mouth study design including 30 participants with gingivitis and/or mild chronic periodontitis; treated with supra-gingival scaling from teeth #13 to #23. Subjects were randomised to group A or group B. Group A was treated first with PS scaler tips, whereas group B was treated first with conventional scaler tips. Pain perception was recorded using the visual analogue scale (VAS).
RESULTS: In vitro study: both scaler tips caused significant reduction in root substance roughness after scaling (p 0.05) was observed. The PS scaler tip caused statistically significantly less root substance loss (p design causes less tooth substance loss compared to a wider scaler tip design. In the clinical study, less pain was observed compared than a wide (conventional) scaler tip design.