Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma practice

Purpose: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) readings taken using dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) with IOP readings taken with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in eyes with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Methods: The present study included 100 eyes in 100 patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. After pachymetry DCT and GAT were performed. Intraocular pressures as measured with DCT and GAT were compared with one another and with central corneal thickness (CCT). Results: Mean DCT IOP measurements (20.1 ± 4.3 mmHg) were significantly (p < 0.001) higher than GAT IOP values (17.9 ± 4.7 mmHg). The mean difference between DCT and GAT measurements was 2.1 mmHg (range ? 3.4 to 9.7 mmHg). The difference followed a normal distribution. Measurements made with DCT and GAT correlated significantly with one another (Spearman’s rho = 0.761, p < 0.001). Neither GAT nor DCT measurements showed a significant correlation with CCT (537 ± 39 μm, range 458–656 μm). Multivariate regression analysis has shown that the difference between DCT and GAT is influenced significantly by ocular pulse amplitude (r = ? 0.334, p = 0.001) and it is not influenced by CCT (r = ? 0.106, p = 0.292). Conclusions: In eyes with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, DCT facilitates suitable and reliable IOP measurements which are in good concordance with GAT readings. Variation in CCT cannot by itself explain the differences in measurements taken with DCT and GAT in a number of eyes.     

Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in normal and glaucomatous eyes

AIM: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the rebound tonometry (RT), dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in normal and glaucomatous eyes and investigate the effects of central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal curvature (CC) on IOP measurements. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-four eyes of 124 subjects were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Fifty-six of participants were healthy individuals and 68 of them were glaucomatous patients. IOP was measured on each subject always in the same order, ICare RT-Pascal DCT-GAT, after a minimum interval of 10min between measurements. CCT and CC were measured using a rotating Scheimpflug camera before the IOP measurements in all subjects. One way repeated measures ANOVA, Pearson correlation coefficient and regression analysis, and Bland-Altman analysis was used for the statistical assessment. RESULTS: Mean IOP for all enrolled eyes was 16.00±3.80 mm Hg for GAT, 16.99±4.91 mm Hg for RT, and 20.40±4.44 mm Hg for DCT. Mean differences between GAT and RT was -1.75±3.41 mm Hg in normal (P<0.001) and -0.37±3.00 mm Hg in glaucomatous eyes (P=0.563). Mean differences between GAT and DCT was -4.06±3.42 mm Hg in normal (P<0.001) and -4.67±3.12 mm Hg in glaucomatous eyes (P<0.001). GAT and RT were significantly positive correlated with CCT in normal (r=0.317, P=0.017 and r=0.576, P<0.001, respectively) and glaucomatous eyes (r=0.290, P=0.016 and r=0.351, P=0.003, respectively). DCT was also significantly positive correlated with CCT in normal eyes (r=0.424, P=0.001) but not in glaucomatous eyes (r=0.170, P=0.165). All tonometers were unaffected by CC. CONCLUSION: IOP measurements by RT and DCT were significantly higher than GAT. DCT has highest IOP measurements among these tonometers. RT was most influenced tonometer from CCT although all tonometers were significantly positive correlated with CCT except DCT in glaucomatous eyes. CC did not influence IOP measurements.     

Repeatability and accuracy of applanation resonance tonometry in healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma

Purpose: To evaluate the repeatability and accuracy of the applanation resonance tonometer (ART) used in the automatic servo‐controlled version, and to evaluate the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on the ART intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements. Methods: This prospective, randomized, single‐centre study included one eye of 153 subjects (35 healthy volunteers and 118 patients with glaucoma). All participants underwent ultrasonic CCT measurement, followed by IOP evaluation with Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and ART in random order. A single operator measured the IOP with each tonometer three times. Intra‐examiner variability was evaluated using the coefficient of variation (CoV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and test–retest differences. Intermethod agreement was assessed using the Bland–Altman method. Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between IOP measurements and CCT. Results: The mean IOP was 17.7 ± 4.4 mmHg with GAT and 20.6 ± 5.3 mmHg with ART (p < 0.001). CoV and ICC were, respectively, 5 ± 3% and 0.99 for GAT, and 8 ± 4% and 0.96 for ART (intermethods differences, p = 0.001). The ART test–retest differences significantly increased with increasing mean IOP (p = 0.003). The mean IOP difference (ART minus GAT) was 3.0 ± 4.0 mmHg, which increased with increasing mean IOP (p < 0.001). Both GAT IOP and ART IOP readings were significantly directly related to the CCT values (p = 0.03 and p = 0.004, respectively; intermethods difference, p = 0.32). Conclusions: The ART intra‐examiner repeatability was excellent, although significantly lower than that of GAT, and decreased at higher IOP levels. ART significantly overestimated GAT IOP measurements, especially at higher IOP range. Both GAT and ART appeared similarly influenced by CCT value.     

Effect of central corneal thickness on intraocular pressure and comparison of Topcon CT‐80 non‐contact tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry

Background

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the Topcon CT‐80 non‐contact tonometer (NCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), in different ranges of IOP in normal and glaucoma subjects, and to assess the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on the IOP measurements in Asian Indian eyes.

Methods

Four hundred and two eyes of 402 subjects (193 newly diagnosed primary open angle glaucoma [POAG] and 209 normal) were enrolled for this prospective study. For each eye, IOP was measured with GAT by a glaucoma specialist and NCT by a trained optometrist. The IOP values were compared among the tonometers in the three different IOP ranges (≤ 12 mmHg, 13–20 mmHg and ≥ 21 mmHg) using Bland–Altman graphs. Correlation between GAT and NCT was assessed by Pearson correlation co‐efficient. CCT was measured with ultrasound pachymetry and its correlation with GAT and NCT was analysed using linear regression analysis.

Results

The mean paired difference of IOP between NCT and GAT was 1.556 ± 2.69 mmHg (r = 0.26, p = 0.006) at IOP range of ≤ 12 mmHg, ?1.665 ± 2.6 mmHg (r = 0.51, p < 0.0001) in IOP range of 13–20 mmHg and ?2.202 ± 3.44 mmHg (r = 0.82, p < 0.0001) in the IOP range of ≥ 21 mmHg. Linear regression analysis showed a mean IOP variation of 0.27 mmHg per 10 μm change in CCT for NCT (p < 0.0001) and IOP change of 0.19 mmHg per 10 μm change in CCT for GAT (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

In this study of normotensive and POAG subjects, the Topcon CT‐80 NCT showed an overestimation of IOP at the lower range and underestimation of IOP in normal and higher ranges of IOP. Clinicians should keep in mind that CCT influences IOP measurement with both types of tonometer and that the IOP readings obtained with these tonometers are not interchangeable.

     

Performance of the rebound,noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers in routine clinical practice

Purpose: To compare rebound tonometry (RBT) and noncontact tonometry (NCT) using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) as reference. Methods: The study sample was comprised of 108 eyes of 108 subjects consecutively examined at a general ophthalmology clinic. The order of use of the three tonometers was randomized at the study outset. The difference between the methods was plotted against the mean to compare the tonometers. The hypothesis of zero bias was examined by a paired t‐test and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were also calculated. Differences with respect to GAT were assessed according to the international standard for ocular tonometers (ISO 8612). Results: Mean intraocular pressures (IOPs ± SD) obtained using the three instruments were GAT 17.5 ± 3.8 mmHg; RBT 18.5 ± 5.5 mmHg and NCT 17.4 ± 5.6 mmHg. The 95% LoA were from ?7.9 to +7.7 mmHg for NCT–GAT and from ?6.8 mmHg to +8.7 mmHg for RBT–GAT. A difference with respect to GAT under ±1 mmHg was observed in 11.1% of the eyes measured by NCT and 18.5% of eyes measured by RBT. According to the IOP ranges established by the ISO 8612, differences from GAT measurements greater than ±5 mmHg were always above the accepted level of 5%. Correlations between IOP and central corneal thickness (CCT) were significant for all three tonometers. Conclusions: The rebound and noncontact tonometer behaved similarly when used to measure IOP taking GAT measurements as the reference standard. Neither tonometer fulfilled ISO 8612 requirements. Both were similarly influenced by CCT.     

The effect of contact lens-induced corneal edema on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry

Purpose  To evaluate the effect of contact lens-induced corneal edema on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in Asian subjects. Participants  The study included 40 eyes of 20 normal volunteers with no evidence of ocular disease. Methods  Forty eyes of 20 healthy volunteers were required to wear soft contact lenses for 2 hours to induce corneal swelling. Central corneal thickness (CCT) and IOP were measured before and immediately after contact lens wear using specular microscope, GAT, and DCT. The IOP measurements by GAT and DCT were compared. The changes in the CCT and the IOP measurements after wearing contact lenses were assessed. Results  The mean CCT of the 40 eyes evaluated was 532.6 ± 31.6 μm. The mean IOP was 11.78 ± 2.04 mmHg for the GAT and 14.46 ± 1.89 mmHg for the DCT, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). After wearing contact lenses, the mean CCT was 553.2 ± 34.3 μm, which was 20.6 ± 12.9 μm greater than before wearing them (P < 0.001). The mean IOP measurements of the GAT and DCT were decreased after wearing the contact lenses. The mean decrease of the GAT values was 0.43 ± 1.95 mmHg, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.175). However, the mean decrease of the DCT readings, which was 0.75 ± 1.74 mm Hg, was statistically significant (P = 0.010). Conclusion  The IOP measurements with DCT were significantly higher than those with GAT in healthy Asian eyes. Although the mean IOP measurements of both the GAT and the DCT were decreased in the edematous cornea, IOP measurements of the DCT were more affected by corneal edema than were the GAT. The authors have no proprietary, commercial, or financial interests in any of the products described in this study.     

Is the PASCAL-Tonometer suitable for measuring intraocular pressure in clinical routine? Long- and short-term reproducibility of dynamic contour tonometry

PURPOSE: Dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) is a new technique to measure intraocular pressure (IOP). In several studies no correlation between IOP values and corneal thickness was shown with DCT. This is in contrast to the gold standard, Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The authors evaluated the reproducibility (RP) of DCT compared to GAT, a prerequisite for its introduction into clinical routine. METHODS: IOP was measured with both DCT and GAT in 50 subjects with normal cornea. To evaluate the short-term RP, four DCT and four GAT measurements were performed at day 1 in a randomized order. Long-term RP was determined by one additional measurement per method at day 2, 5, and 8. RESULTS: The short-term RP was defined as the mean value of all standard deviations (SD) of the individual measurements at day 1. Short-term RP was 1.1 mmHg for GAT and 1.2 mmHg for DCT. For long-term reproducibility, mean SD was 1.2 mmHg for GAT and 1.5 mmHg for DCT. Bland-Altman revealed a good agreement of the two methods. However, mean DCT values were on average 0.8+/-1.1 mmHg higher than GAT values. A significant correlation was observed between GAT and CCT (r2=0.15, p=0.006), but not between DCT and CCT (r2=0.032, p=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Short- and long-term reproducibility of DCT is comparable to that of GAT. GAT is more affected by CCT than DCT, measuring higher IOPs in eyes with higher central corneal thickness.     

三种眼压计测量高眼压儿童眼压及其与中央角膜厚度的关系

目的：探讨经Topcon眼压计(non-contact tonometry,NCT)初筛高眼压的屈光不正儿童的中央角膜厚度(central corneal thickness,CCT)分布,以及NCT、Goldmann压平眼压计(Goldmann applanation tonometry,GAT)与OCULUS Corvis ST角膜生物力学分析仪(CST)所测眼压值的差异,并分析眼压和CCT的相关性。

方法：选择经NCT测量单眼或双眼眼压高于21mmHg的非青光眼屈光不正儿童39例78眼,用CST和GAT再次进行眼压测量,两种仪器的测量顺序随机,同时用CST测量CCT并根据CCT进行眼压校正。根据CCT分成正常组和较厚组,分析经NCT初筛高眼压的屈光不正儿童的总体CCT分布情况,探讨三种仪器所测眼压值的不同及其与CCT的相关性。

结果：正常CCT组,CST低于GAT和NCT的眼压测量值,差异有统计学意义(F=5.12,P=0.01); 较厚组,三种眼压测量方式的眼压测量值比较,差异均有统计学意义(F=15.72,P<0.001)。NCT和GAT眼压值与CCT呈明显正相关(r_NCT=0.298,P_NCT=0.04; r_GAT=0.408,P_GAT= 0.01); CST校正眼压值与CCT无明显相关性(r_CST=0.062,P_CST=0.593)。

结论：NCT初筛高眼压的屈光不正儿童的CCT偏厚,CST校正眼压低于NCT和Goldmann眼压,NCT和GAT所测眼压与CCT呈正相关; 对于CCT偏厚的儿童患者,CST校正眼压比NCT和GAT更接近于真实眼压值。     

Assessment of intraocular pressure measured by Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer, Goldmann Applanation Tonometry, and Dynamic Contour Tonometry in healthy individuals

AIM: To investigate the accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) as measured by a Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA), as well as the relationship between central corneal thickness (CCT) and IOP as measured by ORA, Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT). METHODS: A total of 158 healthy individuals (296 eyes) were chosen randomly for measurement of IOP. After CCT was measured using A-ultrasound (A-US), IOP was measured by ORA, GAT, and DCT devices in a randomized order. The IOP values acquired using each of the three tonometries were compared, and the relationship between CCT and IOP values were analyzed separately. Two IOP values, Goldmann-correlated IOP value (IOPg) and corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc), were got using ORA. Three groups were defined according to CCT: 1) thin cornea (CCT<520μm); 2) normal-thickness cornea (CCT: 520–580μm); and 3) thick cornea (CCT>580μm) groups. RESULTS: In normal subjects, IOP measurements were 14.95±2.99mmHg with ORA (IOPg), 15.21±2.77mmHg with ORA (IOPcc), 15.22±2.77mmHg with GAT, and 15.49±2.56mmHg with DCT. Mean differences were 0.01±2.29mmHg between IOPcc and GAT (P>0.05) and 0.28±2.20mmHg between IOPcc and DCT (P>0.05). There was a greater correlation between IOPcc and DCT (r=0.946, P=0.000) than that between IOPcc and GAT (r=0.845, P=0.000). DCT had a significant correlation with GAT (r=0.854, P=0.000). GAT was moderately correlated with CCT (r=0.296, P<0.001), while IOPcc showed a weak but significant correlation with CCT (r=?0.155, P=0.007). There was a strong negative correlation between CCT and the difference between IOPcc and GAT(r=-0.803,P=0.000), with every 10μm increase in CCT resulting in an increase in this difference of 0.35mmHg. The thick cornea group (CCT>580μm) showed the least significant correlation between IOPcc and GAT (r=0.859, P=0.000); while the thin cornea group (CCT＜520μm) had the most significant correlation between IOPcc and GAT (r=0.926, P=0.000). The correlated differences between IOPcc and DCT were not significant in any of the three groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Measurement of IOP by ORA has high repeatability and is largely consistent with GAT measurements. Moreover, the ORA measurements are affected only to a small extent by CCT, and are likely to be much closer to the real IOP value than GAT.     

动态轮廓眼压计在正常人群中的应用及其影响因素分析

目的评价动态轮廓眼压计（DCT）与Goldmann压平眼压计（GAT）测量值之间的关系,寻找DCT眼压测量值的影响因素;分析DCT所测眼压脉动振幅（OPA）与DCT眼压值、中央角膜厚度（CCT）、角膜屈光力（CCV）、眼轴长度（AL）、前房深度（ACD）、收缩压（SBP）、舒张压（DBP）和心率（HR）的关系。方法分别测量正常人60例60眼的DCT眼压、GAT眼压、CCT、CCV、AL、ACD以及HR、SBP、DBP等指标,比较GAT、DCT2种眼压计测量的相关性及DCT测量值的影响因素。结果 DCT与GAT所测眼压平均值分别为（16.04±2.57）mmHg和（14.20±2.93）mmHg。DCT眼压值较GAT眼压值高,差异有统计学意义（t=6.454,P〈0.01）。DCT眼压值与GAT眼压值呈正相关（r=0.684,P〈0.01）。DCT眼压值与CCT不相关（r=0.212,P=0.105）,GAT眼压值与CCT呈正相关（r=0.291,P=0.024）。60例正常人的OPA均值为（2.50±0.89）mmHg,OPA与年龄、DCT眼压值、CCT、SBP、DBP、HR均不相关（P〉0.05）,与CCV呈正相关（r=0.343,P=0.007）。结论在正常人群中DCT眼压值与GAT眼压值有较好的相关性,DCT的眼压测量值不受CCT、CCV等因素的影响。DCT眼压值、CCT、SBP、DBP、HR等对OPA无明显影响。     

PASCAL动态轮廓眼压计临床应用的初步报告

目的:验证动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)的临床性能。方法:对81例143眼青光眼及可疑病例青光眼患者用DCT测量眼内压(IOP);132眼同时用Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)测量眼压,部分病例同时用NIDEKUP-1000型角膜测厚仪测量中央角膜厚度(CCT)。GAT与DCT测量结果采用配对t检验,GAT、DCT测量值与CCT的关系及DCT测量值与眼脉动振幅(OPA)的相关关系采用Spearman双变量相关分析。结果:①DCT和GAT测得的眼压均数分别为(18.6±3.9)mmHg和(17.4±4.1)mmHg;DCT测得的眼压值高于GAT,其差值均数为(1.1±2.3)mmHg;两种眼压计测得的眼压值呈正相关(r=0.83,P<0.01)。②116眼同时完成了DCT眼压测量及CCT测量,两者相关系数r=0.03,P=0.77;113眼同时完成了GAT眼压测量及CCT测量,两者相关系数r=0.28,P=0.003。③143眼同时记录了DCT眼压值和眼脉动振幅(OPA),其均数分别为(18.6±3.9)mmHg和(2.6±1.1)mmHg,两者的相关系数r=0.32,P<0.01。结论:以上结果初步证实:①DCT眼压计测量值与GAT眼压测量值高度相关,但DCT测量值略高于GAT测量值,提示DCT可用于临床诊断。②DCT测量值与CCT不相关,GAT测量值与CCT显著相关,提示DCT在青光眼诊断中有独特优势。③DCT测量的OPA与IOP值显著相关,相关的机制及临床意义有待探讨。     

Evaluierung der dynamischen Konturtonometrie bei Keratokonus

Purpose

The gold standard for measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) until now has been Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), which depends on the central corneal thickness (CCT) and curvature. In patients with keratoconus who have an abnormal corneal geometry and thickness, measurement of pressure with GAT is often difficult and not very reproducible. We compared the impact of the central corneal thickness (CCT) on the IOP measured with dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), a digital method which is adapted to the corneal geometry, and GAT in patients with keratoconus.

Methods

IOP was measured in 54 patients (38 men and 16 women, mean age of 36±9.9 years) with GAT and DCT in randomized order. All patients had a keratoconus which was assured by topography. In addition central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured with the Pentacam. For statistical analysis the Pearson correlation was calculated and a Bland-Altman diagram plotted.

Results

Mean corneal thickness was 486.2±45.5 μm. DCT measured the IOP at a mean value of 14.9±2.6 mmHg and GAT at 13.3±2.9 mmHg. With a mean difference of 1.6±2.4 mmHg DCT measured significantly higher than GAT (p≤0.05) Neither IOP measurements with GAT (r=?0.03; p>0.05) nor those with DCT (r=0.08; p>0.05) showed a significant correlation to central corneal thickness.

Conclusion

The example of keratoconus confirms that IOP measured by GAT is lower than if measured by DCT. Because both methods are independent of the CCT they are equally acceptable for IOP follow-up in eyes with keratoconus, which may result in progressive corneal thinning in the long term.     

动态轮廓眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计及非接触眼压计测量眼压的对比研究

目的探讨动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)与Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)及非接触眼压计(NCT)测量眼压的准确性,并比较三种眼压计测量结果与中央角膜厚度(CCT)的相关性。设计前瞻性、比较性病例系列。研究对象连续选取90例(90眼)10~76岁正常人。方法采用KONAN非接触式角膜内皮镜测量CCT后,对所有入选者单眼以随机顺序采用Pascal型DCT、GAT及Topcon型NCT测量眼压。测量结果两两比较,并将眼压值与CCT进行直线回归分析。主要指标眼压值,Pearson相关系数。结果 90例正常人DCT眼压平均值(17.33±2.71 mm Hg)明显高于GAT(14.27±2.81 mm Hg)(P=0.000)及NCT(14.67±2.93 mm Hg)(P=0.000),平均差异分别为(3.06±2.01)mm Hg和(2.67±2.20)mm Hg;GAT与NCT之间平均差异为(-0.39±2.29)mm Hg(P=0.105)。DCT与GAT眼压值之间相关系数r=0.736(P=0.000);与NCT眼压值之间相关系数r=0.699(P=0.000)。GAT、NCT眼压值与CCT均明显相关(r=0.370,P=0.000;r=0.508,P=0.000);DCT眼压值与CCT无明显相关性(r=0.051,P=0.639)。DCT和GAT的差值与年龄无明显相关性(r=0.064,P=0.052)。结论 DCT测量的眼压值虽高于GAT及NCT,但不受CCT的影响,可能较GAT和NCT测量的眼压值更接近真实值。     

Factors affecting ocular pulse amplitude in eyes with open angle glaucoma and glaucoma‐suspect eyes

Purpose: To investigate the associations between ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) as measured by dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and ocular and systemic factors in patients with open angle glaucoma (OAG) and in glaucoma suspects. Methods: One hundred and seventy‐three glaucoma‐suspect patients were consecutively enrolled. All subjects underwent intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement by DCT and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), OPA measurement by DCT, Humphrey visual field (HVF) examination and central corneal thickness measurements. Arterial pulse amplitude (APA) and ocular perfusion pressure (OPP) were defined as the difference between systolic and diastolic BP and the difference between mean arterial pressure and IOP, respectively. All subjects also completed a systemized questionnaire on systemic vascular morbidities. Results: Seventy‐four eyes were diagnosed with OAG, based on HVF results. The overall mean CCT was 538.2 ± 37.6 μm. In all 173 eyes, OPA was associated with spherical equivalent (SE, p < 0.001) and with IOP by GAT (p = 0.013) by multivariate analysis. Multivariate analysis of the 77 subgroup eyes of patients for whom BP parameters were available also revealed that OPA was associated with SE (p = 0.007) and with IOP by GAT (p < 0.001). When the subjects were classified into the groups with low, intermediate and high cardiovascular risk based on the questionnaire, there was no difference in OPA among these groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Ocular pulse amplitude was associated with IOP measured by GAT and SE in patients with OAG and in glaucoma suspects. There was neither significant correlation between systemic hemodynamic parameters and OPA, nor difference of OPA in patients with different cardiovascular risk. OPA is primarily a measure of pressure, and there are certain limitations towards its use as a hemodynamic index.     

Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study

Background Various sources of error, including central corneal thickness (CCT) and structural corneal rigidity, have been proposed for Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) is a novel device designed for intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements assumed to be largely independent of CCT and corneal curvature. We compared DCT with GAT in eyes with normal corneas of various thickness.Methods We prospectively measured IOP using DCT and GAT in random order in 100 eyes of 100 subjects (M:F=46:54; mean age 42±19, range 23–88 years).Results Mean DCT values were about 1mmHg higher than GAT readings (16±3 vs 15±3 mmHg, p=0.001). Bland–Altman analysis of individual pairs of DCT and GAT measurements revealed a bias of –1.0 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI): ±1.2]. Neither GAT nor DCT showed a significant correlation with CCT (533±48, range 399–641 m).Conclusions In eyes with normal corneas, DCT allows suitable and reliable IOP measurements which are in good concordance with GAT. Comparison of DCT with intracameral manometry is desirable in the future.     

Physiological diurnal variability and characteristics of the ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) with the dynamic contour tonometer (DCT-Pascal<Superscript>®</Superscript>)

PURPOSE: The Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) allows measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) independently of corneal properties. It records, simultaneously, haemodynamic IOP fluctuations and the difference between the systolic and the diastolic IOP corresponding to the ocular pulse amplitude (OPA). The OPA indirectly reflects choroidal perfusion and could be considered as an independent risk factor in glaucoma. We aimed to establish the physiological diurnal variability of the OPA and its correlations with other biophysical parameters because its characteristics remain partly unclear. METHOD: Prospective study including 52 eyes of 28 normal subjects with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) IOPs < 22 mmHg. Subjects treated with systemic medications that could interfere with blood pressure or heart rate were excluded. IOP was measured at 9:00 am, 1:00 pm, and 4:00 pm by GAT and DCT. Two consecutive GAT followed by three consecutive DCT measurements were performed in each session by the same clinician (SP). Only DCT measurements with quality 1 and 2 were taken into account. Blood pressure, pulse rate, and central corneal thickness (CCT) were recorded after the last IOP measurements. Spearman correlation coefficient was used for assessment of correlations. RESULTS: Mean age was 40 +/- 14 years. Mean DCT values were significantly higher than GAT readings (mean = 16.8 +/- 2.0 vs. 15.2 +/- 2.8 mmHg, P < 0.02). The mean OPA was 2.2 +/- 0.7 mmHg (range: 1-3.4 mmHg). The mean amplitude of diurnal OPA fluctuations was 0.4 mmHg. There was no significant difference in the mean OPA values at each time of the diurnal curve. The intraclass correlation (ICC) of only one OPA measurement in relation to part of total variance due to inter-measurement variation was 78%. Averaging over three independent readings of OPA improved ICC to 91%. The OPA was correlated with GAT (r = 0.31, P < 0.0001) and DCT IOP measurements (r = 0.49, P < 0.0001). It was correlated neither with blood pressure nor with age. OPA values of both eyes of the same individual were highly correlated (r = 0.89, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In normal healthy eyes, the ocular pulse amplitude remains stable during normal outpatient office hours and was not correlated with blood pressure or age of patients.     

Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the TonoPen, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma

PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements taken with Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), the TonoPen and the Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements taken with Pascal DCT and the TonoPen was evaluated. METHODS: One eye in each of 101 consecutive patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) underwent ultrasonic CCT measurement and IOP evaluation with GAT, Pascal DCT and the TonoPen in random order. The agreement between results from Pascal DCT and the TonoPen and those of GAT was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. The deviation of Pascal DCT and TonoPen readings from GAT values, corrected for CCT, was calculated and correlated to CCT using a linear regression model. RESULTS: The mean of the differences in IOP measurements was 3.2 +/- 2.4 mmHg for Pascal DCT minus GAT readings and 0.5 +/- 4.5 mmHg for TonoPen minus GAT readings. The 95% confidence interval of differences in IOP measurements was higher between TonoPen and GAT readings (- 6 to 7 mmHg) than between Pascal and GAT readings (0.1-6.8 mmHg). Pascal DCT significantly overestimated IOP compared with GAT, especially for higher IOP readings. Bland-Altman scatterplots showed reasonable inter-method agreement between Pascal DCT and GAT measurements, and poor agreement between TonoPen and GAT measurements. The deviations of Pascal DCT and TonoPen readings from the corrected GAT values were both highly correlated with CCT values (linear regression analysis, p < 0.0001). The mean change in measured IOP for a 10-microm increase in CCT was 0.48 mmHg for Pascal DCT and 0.74 mmHg for the TonoPen. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement with GAT measurements was higher for Pascal DCT than for TonoPen readings; however, Pascal DCT significantly overestimated IOP values compared with GAT. Measurements of IOP obtained with both Pascal DCT and the TonoPen appeared to be influenced by CCT, and this influence appeared to be greater for the latter.     

Poor utility of intraocular pressure correction formulae in individual glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients

Background: To compare Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) measurements with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) readings after adjustment with correction formulae in a population of Caucasian glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients. Design: Retrospective cross‐sectional case series in a specialist glaucoma practice. Participants: Consecutive glaucoma and glaucoma suspect Caucasian patients. Methods: Case notes review of the GAT and DCT intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements from patients who presented on a non‐acute basis over a 30‐month period. The GAT measurement was adjusted with six different correction formulae. Agreement between GAT IOP, adjusted GAT IOP and DCT IOP was evaluated with the Bland‐Altman analysis. Main Outcome Measures: Agreement between GAT IOP (both unadjusted and adjusted) and DCT IOP. Results: Data from 200 patients with a mean age of 58.4 (±12.7) years were analysed. The mean central corneal thickness was 554.8 (±36.9) µm and the mean corneal hysteresis was 9.8 (±1.9) mm Hg. Sixty five (32.5%) had confirmed glaucomatous optic neuropathy. GAT IOP demonstrated poor agreement with DCT IOP. GAT IOP was on average 2.1 mm Hg less than DCT IOP. None of the six correction formulae resulted in improved agreement with DCT IOP. General linear model analysis found no statistically significant measurement differences between the glaucoma and glaucoma suspect groups. Conclusions: GAT demonstrated poor agreement with DCT, and agreement did not improve after adjustment with correction formulae. Our results suggest that correction formulae for GAT IOP are unsuitable to clinically approximate ‘true’ IOP in Caucasian glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients.     

PASCAL动态轮廓眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计在非青光眼人群中眼压测量值的比较及一致性分析

目的探讨在不同的中央角膜厚度(CCT)下PASCAL动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)与Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)眼压(IOP)测量值的相关性,评价两者测量值的一致性及临床上两种眼压计测量值相互替换的可能性。方法非青光眼病例87例(168只眼)分别用DCT和GAT进行眼压测量,两种仪器的测量顺序随机。同时,用NIDEK UP-1000型角膜测厚仪测量CCT。DCT与GAT眼压测量值的相关性采用Spearson双变量相关分析,Bland-Altman分析法评价两种仪器IOP测量值的一致性。结果 (1)在不同的角膜厚度下DCT与GAT测得的IOP值均显著相关(CCT≤520μm,n=24,r=0.67,P<0.001;520μm580μm,n=44,r=0.61,P<0.001)。(2)DCT眼压测量值与CCT不相关(r=0.14,P=0.08),GAT眼压测量值与CCT显著相关(r=0.59,P<0.001)。(3)Bland-Altman一致性分析显示两种仪器的差值的均值为-0.9mm Hg,一致性界限为(-5.6 mm Hg,3.9 mm Hg)。结论 (1)在不同的角膜厚度下DCT与GAT的眼压测量值均显著相关。(2)DCT眼压测量值与CCT值不相关,GAT眼压测量值与CCT值显著相关。(3)一致性分析显示两者测量值的一致性界限跨度较宽,二者的IOP值不可简单地相互代替。     

Association between corneal hysteresis and central corneal thickness in glaucomatous and non‐glaucomatous eyes

Purpose: We aimed to determine corneal hysteresis values (CH) using the ocular response analyser (ORA) in non‐glaucomatous and glaucomatous eyes and their relationship with central corneal thickness (CCT). Methods: Corneal hysteresis, intraocular pressure (IOP) as measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and CCT were prospectively evaluated in 74 non‐glaucoma subjects with IOP < 21 mmHg and in 108 patients with treated primary open‐angle glaucoma (POAG). One eye in each subject was randomly selected for inclusion in the analysis. Results: Mean (± standard deviation [SD]) age was 59.2 ± 14.2 years in the non‐glaucoma group and 62.4 ± 9.8 years in the glaucoma group. Mean (± SD) GAT IOP was 15.7 ± 2.65 mmHg and 16.38 ± 2.73 mmHg in the non‐glaucoma and glaucoma groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in mean age (p = 0.396) or mean GAT IOP (p = 0.098). Mean (± SD) CH was 10.97 ± 1.59 mmHg in the non‐glaucoma and 8.95 ± 1.27 mmHg in the glaucoma groups, respectively. The difference in mean CH between the two groups was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). There was a strong positive correlation between CH and CCT in the non‐glaucoma group (r = 0.743) and a significantly (p = 0.001) weaker correlation (r = 0.426) in the glaucoma group. Conclusions: Corneal hysteresis was significantly lower in eyes with treated POAG than in non‐glaucomatous eyes. The corneal biomechanical response was strongly associated with CCT in non‐glaucoma subjects, but only moderately so in glaucoma patients. It can be assumed that diverse structural factors, in addition to thickness, determine the differences in the corneal biomechanical profile between non‐glaucomatous and glaucomatous eyes. Corneal hysteresis could be a useful tool in the diagnosis of glaucoma.