See the published version of this preprint at BMC Ophthalmology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Je Beom Hong
Kangbuk Samsung Hospital
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4812-565X
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Increased use of the transorbital approach (TOA) warrants greater understanding of the risk of increased intraocular pressure (IOP) and intraorbital pressure (IORP) due to orbital compression. We aimed to investigate the changes in IOP and IORP in response to orbital retraction in TOA and establish a method for the continuous measurement of intraoperative IORP.
Methods: We assessed nine patients who underwent TOA surgery from January 2017 to December 2019, in addition to five cadavers. IORP and IOP were measured using a cannula needle monitor, tonometer, cuff manometer, and micro strain gauge monitor.
Results: In all nine clinical cases and five cadavers, increased physical compression of the orbit increased the IOP and IORP in a curvilinear pattern. In clinical cases, when the orbit was compressed 1.5 cm from the lateral margin in the sagittal plane, the mean IOP and IORP were 25.4±5.2 mmHg and 14±9.2 mmH2O, respectively. The IORP satisfactorily reflected the IOP (Pearson correlation coefficient=0.824, p<0.001).
Conclusion: We measured IOP and IORP simultaneously during orbital compression to gain basic information on pressure changes. In clinical cases, the change in the IOP could be conveniently and noninvasively monitored using continuous IORP measurements.
Keywords
Intraocular pressure, Intraorbital pressure, Orbital compression, Transorbital approach
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Ophthalmology.
Version 3
Posted 13 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 25 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 31 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 31 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 31 Dec, 2020
Version (no preprint)
Posted 22 Dec, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 22 Dec, 2020
Editor assigned
On 21 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 21 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 21 Dec, 2020
This version was not preprinted
No comments provided
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 28 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 28 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 12 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 11 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 11 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 28 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 13 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 13 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 24 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 24 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 16 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 16 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 26 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 23 Jul, 2020
First submitted
On 23 Jul, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Ophthalmology
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Ophthalmology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Je Beom Hong
Kangbuk Samsung Hospital
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4812-565X
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Ophthalmology.
Version 3
Posted 13 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 25 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 31 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 31 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 31 Dec, 2020
Version (no preprint)
Posted 22 Dec, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 22 Dec, 2020
Editor assigned
On 21 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 21 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 21 Dec, 2020
This version was not preprinted
No comments provided
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 28 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 28 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 12 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 11 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 11 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 28 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 13 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 13 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 24 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 24 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 16 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 16 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 26 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 23 Jul, 2020
First submitted
On 23 Jul, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Ophthalmology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Ophthalmology.
Background: Increased use of the transorbital approach (TOA) warrants greater understanding of the risk of increased intraocular pressure (IOP) and intraorbital pressure (IORP) due to orbital compression. We aimed to investigate the changes in IOP and IORP in response to orbital retraction in TOA and establish a method for the continuous measurement of intraoperative IORP.
Methods: We assessed nine patients who underwent TOA surgery from January 2017 to December 2019, in addition to five cadavers. IORP and IOP were measured using a cannula needle monitor, tonometer, cuff manometer, and micro strain gauge monitor.
Results: In all nine clinical cases and five cadavers, increased physical compression of the orbit increased the IOP and IORP in a curvilinear pattern. In clinical cases, when the orbit was compressed 1.5 cm from the lateral margin in the sagittal plane, the mean IOP and IORP were 25.4±5.2 mmHg and 14±9.2 mmH2O, respectively. The IORP satisfactorily reflected the IOP (Pearson correlation coefficient=0.824, p<0.001).
Conclusion: We measured IOP and IORP simultaneously during orbital compression to gain basic information on pressure changes. In clinical cases, the change in the IOP could be conveniently and noninvasively monitored using continuous IORP measurements.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Loading...