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.     

Clinical evaluation of applanation resonance tonometry: a comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometry

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to calibrate and evaluate the precision of the new applanation resonance tonometry (ART) in a clinical study designed in accordance with the International Standard Organization's requirements. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, single-center study, where healthy volunteers and patients participated. A total of 153 eyes were divided into 3 groups with respect to their intraocular pressure (IOP) at screening: <16 mm Hg, 16 to 23 mm Hg, and >23 mm Hg. IOP was measured with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) as reference method and by ART in both a biomicroscope (ARTBiom) and a handheld (ARTHand) setup with a 10-minutes pause between methods. The mean of 6 readings was regarded as one measurement value. RESULTS: Mean age of the subjects was 59 years (range 20 to 87 y). GAT showed a mean IOP of 20.0 mm Hg (range 8.5 to 43.5 mm Hg, n=153). The precision was 2.07 mm Hg for ARTBiom and 2.50 mm Hg for ARTHand, with a significant dependency for age as compared with GAT. Measurement order produced a decreasing IOP with a mean of 2.3 mm Hg between the first and last method. CONCLUSIONS: The precision obtained in both ARTBiom and ARTHand was within the limits set by the International Standard Organization standards for tonometers. The standardized procedure and the stability of the biomicroscope setup resulted in a slightly better precision as compared with the handheld setup. Despite a 10-minutes pause between measurements, the order was a significant factor, possibly because the patients were more apprehensive at the first measurement.     

A comparison of Perkins and Goldmann applanation tonometry

In a study of 103 eyes, the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) was compared between the Perkins hand-held tonometer and the Goldmann slit lamp mounted tonometer. IOP readings from the two instruments were highly correlated (+0.91). Advantages inherent to the Perkins design are also discussed.     

A comparison between Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry after photorefractive keratectomy

Background

The intraocular pressure (IOP) could be measured by both Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT). Although these two methods have been discussed widely after laser-assisted sub-epithelial keratectomy (LASIK), there is little data in the cases undergoing photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). We aimed to compare the changes of IOP measurements obtained by GAT and DCT after PRK for myopia/myopic astigmatism.

Methods

This prospective study enrolled 77 candidates (154 eyes) for PRK to correct myopia or myopic astigmatism and 30 matched patients (30 eyes) with myopia or myopic astigmatism who served as controls. Changes of the IOP measurements (ΔIOP) obtained by GAT and DCT before and at 6 months after PRK in the operated eyes, and at baseline and 6 months later in the controls, were documented. Changes of the central corneal thickness (ΔCCT) were determined in the same fashion.

Results

The mean IOP readings obtained by DCT were comparable before and at 6 months after procedure (18.34 ± 3.03 mmHg and 17.87 ± 2.61 mmHg respectively, p?=?0.41); whereas the mean IOP reading obtained by GAT decreased significantly 6 months postoperatively (17.92 ± 3.63 mmHg and 16.25 ± 2.66 mmHg, p?<?0.001). A significant correlation was present between the ΔIOP obtained by GAT and ΔCCT (r?=?0.61, p?<?0.001). Similar correlation was not significant between the DCT-obtained ΔIOP and the ΔCCT (r?=?0.07, p?=?0.44). The mean ΔIOP obtained by GAT was significantly higher in the operated eyes than in the controls (?1.54?±?1.45 vs 0.07?±?0.44 mmHg, p?=?0.02). The mean DCT-obtained ΔIOP was just marginally insignificant between the operated and nonoperated eyes (?0.63?±?0.59 vs 0.02?±?0.38 mmHg respectively; p?=?0.09).

Conclusions

The authors recommend DCT after PRK in the cases with myopia or myopic astigmatism     

Pascal,ICare and Goldmann applanation tonometry – a comparative study

Purpose: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements by Pascal, ICare and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), to evaluate the effects of central corneal thickness (CCT) and curvature on IOP measurement and to estimate the intra‐observer variability. Methods: A prospective, single‐centre study of 150 eyes with a wide range of pressures. Six masked IOP measurements/method; corneal thickness and curvature were studied for each eye. GAT was the reference. Results: IOP_Pascal and IOP_ICare correlated with IOP_GAT (r = 0.91, 0.89). Mean ICare measurement exceeded GAT by 2 mmHg. Pascal measured higher than GAT at low IOPs and lower at high IOPs. For every 10 mmHg increase in IOP above 31 mmHg, Pascal measured 2 mmHg lower than GAT and vice versa. CCT was correlated significantly with IOP_GAT (r = 0.23) and IOP_ICare (r = 0.43) but not with IOP_Pascal (P = 0.12). CCT was correlated with age. In a subgroup (>50 years), ICare and the difference between IOP_GAT and IOP_Pascal were affected significantly by the CCT, whereas IOP_GAT and IOP_Pascal were not. Corneal curvature was correlated significantly with IOP_GAT (r = ?0.27) and IOP_Pascal (r = ?0.26) but not with IOP_ICare (P = 0.60). Intra‐observer variability within each set of six measurements was approximately 2 mmHg, irrespective of method. Conclusion: This study showed a reasonable overall correlation and concordance between the IOP obtained with the three instruments. None of the methods were completely independent of the biomechanical properties of the cornea. ICare showed a significant dependency upon CCT, whereas GAT and Pascal showed a significant dependency on corneal curvature. All methods showed intra‐observer variability, which leaves room for further improvement of methods.     

Clinical comparison of the Icare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry

PURPOSE: To compare a new method of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement, using the Icare tonometer, with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two observers obtained IOP readings in 292 eyes (143 right and 149 left) of 153 subjects, using the Icare without topical anesthetic. A GAT reading was subsequently obtained by a consultant ophthalmologist, without the knowledge of the Icare readings. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was obtained on all eyes with ultrasound pachymetry. Patient comfort after IOP measurement was assessed in a consecutive subset of patients. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient between the 2 modalities of IOP measurement was r=0.95 for the right and r=0.93 for the left eye. The mean difference (Icare-GAT) between the IOP measured by the 2 methods was 0.4 mm Hg in the right eye (SD 3.0, 95% confidence interval -5.5 to 6.3), and 0.8 mm Hg in the left eye (SD 3.0, confidence interval -4.7 to 6.2). GAT measurements did not vary with CCT [correlation coefficient=0.09 (P=0.25) right and 0.14 (P=0.09) left eyes]. However, IOP measured with Icare tonometry increased with increasing CCT [correlation coefficient=0.16 (P=0.05) right and 0.21 (P=0.01) left eyes]. For every 100-microm increase in CCT, the difference (Icare-GAT) increased by 1 mm Hg. Of the 38 consecutive patients surveyed, 28 (73.7%) rated the Icare more comfortable than GAT, with only 2 (5.3%) rating it less comfortable (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is good correlation between the 2 methods of IOP measurement, even at extremes of IOP. The Icare instrument was easy to use and recorded rapid and consistent readings with minimal training. It seems to be more comfortable than GAT and obviates the need for topical anesthesia.     

Clinical comparison of the Keeler Pulsair 3000 with Goldmann applanation tonometry

AIM: To confirm the accuracy of the Pulsair 3000 before introducing the instrument into clinical practice. METHOD: A masked study by two experienced tonometrists comparing the mean of the Goldmann intraocular pressure (IOP) readings against the Pulsair 3000 reading (average of four puffs). Results of 150 eyes were compared with an IOP range of 10 mm Hg-44 mm Hg. RESULTS: Correlation between the two Goldmann tonometry results was 0.9830 with a standard deviation of 1.1085 mm Hg. Correlation between the mean of the two Goldmann readings against the Pulsair 3000 reading was 0.982 with a standard deviation of 1.1179 mm Hg. Bland-Altman analysis confirms a satisfactory outcome. CONCLUSION: The Pulsair 3000 provides an accurate and objective method of measuring IOP with many advantages over traditional Goldmann tonometry.     

Intraocular pressure measurement in mice: a comparison between Goldmann and rebound tonometry

PURPOSE: The development of mouse models of glaucoma requires methods to accurately measure the intraocular pressure (IOP) in this species. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of IOP measurements in mice between modified Goldmann and rebound tonometers. METHODS: IOP was measured either with a modified Goldmann or a rebound tonometer while simultaneously measuring the IOP using invasive manometry in enucleated eyes and in vivo. The level of IOP was controlled hydrostatically. The agreement and correlation between the IOP determined by invasive manometry and by either noninvasive method was evaluated. In addition, the IOP was determined by both noninvasive methods in a cohort of mice with laser-induced ocular hypertension (OHT), and the agreement and correlation between the two tonometry methods were evaluated. RESULTS: Measured IOP by either noninvasive tonometer correlated well with those recorded simultaneously by invasive manometry (r=0.98 for rebound and r=0.94 for Goldmann). In mice with OHT, the IOP correlation between rebound and modified Goldmann was moderate (r=0.71); the IOP measured by modified Goldmann tonometry was consistently higher than that by rebound by approximately 5 mmHg. However, the relative per cent increases in IOP were similar between the two methods. CONCLUSION: Both noninvasive methods of IOP measurements in mice are suitable to detect changes in IOP although rebound tonometry correlated better with the invasive manometry readings. The results suggest that the relative, rather than absolute, IOP offers a more reliable means of correlating findings from studies using different tonometers.     

Dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) versus Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) - a comparison of agreement and reproducibility.

BACKGROUND: The PASCAL dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) is a novel device designed for intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements. It is assumed to be largely independent of corneal properties. In a previous study we compared DCT with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in 100 right eyes with normal corneas. The aim of the present study is to evaluate whether differences DCT-GAT >or= 2.0 mmHg found in the previous study are reproducible and also present in the fellow eye. METHODS: Twenty-three of the 100 patients (M:F = 8:15, mean age: 36 +/- 11 SD, range 22-53 years) with a previous difference DCT-GAT >or= 2.0 mmHg were included in the present study. The minimum interval between the initial and the current examination was 3 weeks. The IOP-values of the fellow eyes in this subgroup were assessed in parallel. RESULTS: The difference DCT-GAT was 2.44 +/- 0.4 SEM mmHg in the subgroup of the 23 right eyes and 2.03 +/- 0.5 SEM mmHg for the fellow eyes, compared to 0.94 +/- 0.5 SEM mmHg in the initial sample of 100 eyes. CONCLUSIONS: In cases with higher difference between DCT-GAT, the difference is reproducible and even present in the fellow eye. We, therefore, assume that the differences are not caused by chance, but by differing biomechanical corneal properties.     

Real-world comparison between the Tonopen and Goldmann applanation tonometry in a university glaucoma clinic

Purpose

To determine whether Tonopen intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements by Ophthalmic technicians are interchangeable with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) by a specialist in our glaucoma clinic.

Methods

Ophthalmic technician Tonopen and glaucoma specialist GAT IOP measurements were performed on both undilated eyes of 300 consecutive patients during the same visit to our glaucoma clinic.

Results

Among all 600 eyes of 300 patients (age 65.4, range: 23–92 years, male: 44.3%), Tonopen and GAT IOPs were similar (15.5?±?0.6 vs. 15.4?±?0.7 mmHg, respectively, p?=?0.63) and directly correlated (r²?=?0.58, p?<?0.0001). However, among 120 patients with bilateral primary open-angle glaucoma GAT IOP was significantly higher than Tonopen in the right eyes (17.1?±?1.1 vs. 16.2?±?0.9 mmHg, p?=?0.024) and in the left eyes (17.0?±?1.0 vs. 16.3?±?1.0 mmHg, p?=?0.029). In all 300 right eyes, Tonopen underestimated IOP in 48.3% of eyes and overestimated in 39% (difference range: (???)14 to (?+?)12 mmHg), with IOP difference?>??±?3 mmHg in 34% of eyes. In eyes with GAT IOP?≥?22 mmHg, Tonopen IOP was significantly lower (24.7?±?2.6, range: 11–43 mmHg vs. 28.2?±?2.2, range: 22–43 mmHg, p?=?0.0002, mean difference:???3.6?±?1.7 mmHg), and the Tonopen measured IOP?≤?21 mmHg in 33.3% of eyes. In eyes with Tonopen IOP?≤?10 mmHg GAT measured IOP of 11–17 mmHg in 65.7% of eyes.

Conclusions

Tonopen may mask a third of eyes with elevated IOP and two third of eyes with potentially above-goal IOP. The Tonopen may not be interchangeable with GAT or sufficiently reliable for patient management or screening in our glaucoma clinic. However, further study is recommended to assess the limitations of the Tonopen IOP measurements in eyes with higher or lower GAT IOPs.

Clinical Trials Registration

The Institutional review board, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY does not require this retrospective study to register.

     

The validity of a digital eyelid tonometer (TGDc-01) and its comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometry – a pilot study

PURPOSE: To determine the intra- and inter-examiner repeatability of a new eyelid tonometer, and its agreement with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty normal subjects were recruited and their intraocular pressure was measured by two examiners using the eyelid tonometer. Examiner 1 carried out the first set of measurement, followed by examiner 2, and then examiner 1 again. Finally, a third examiner was responsible for GAT measurement. Five readings were obtained from the eyelid tonometer by each examiner each time and were masked, and three readings were obtained from GAT. The mean readings from the eyelid tonometer and GAT were used for analysis. RESULTS: The intra-examiner repeatability for the eyelid tonometer was better (around +/-5 mmHg 95% of the cases) than the inter-examiner repeatability (around +/-8 mmHg 95% of the cases). The mean difference between the eyelid tonometer and GAT was small from examiner 1 (<0.5 mmHg). However, the limits of agreement were greater than the clinically acceptable level of +/-3 mmHg. Examiner 2 gave an even greater difference from GAT. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other recent studies, we have found that this eyelid tonometer does not provide good agreement with GAT. Different examiners could position the instrument differently and this eyelid tonometer is suggested for screening purposes only.     

Dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) versus Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) - a comparison of agreement and reproducibility

Background

The PASCAL® dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) is a novel device designed for intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements. It is assumed to be largely independent of corneal properties. In a previous study we compared DCT with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in 100 right eyes with normal corneas. The aim of the present study is to evaluate whether differences DCT-GAT?≥?2.0 mmHg found in the previous study are reproducible and also present in the fellow eye.

Methods

Twenty-three of the 100 patients (M:F?=?8:15, mean age: 36?±?11 SD, range 22–53 years) with a previous difference DCT-GAT?≥?2.0 mmHg were included in the present study. The minimum interval between the initial and the current examination was 3 weeks. The IOP-values of the fellow eyes in this subgroup were assessed in parallel.

Results

The difference DCT-GAT was 2.44?±?0.4 SEM mmHg in the subgroup of the 23 right eyes and 2.03?±?0.5 SEM mmHg for the fellow eyes, compared to 0.94?±?0.5 SEM mmHg in the initial sample of 100 eyes.

Conclusions

In cases with higher difference between DCT-GAT, the difference is reproducible and even present in the fellow eye. We, therefore, assume that the differences are not caused by chance, but by differing biomechanical corneal properties.     

Reproducibility of dynamic contour tonometry. Comparison with TonoPenXL and Goldmann applanation tonometry - a clinical study on 323 normal eyes

BACKGROUND: The PASCAL Dynamic Contour Tonometer (DCT) is a new diagnostic approach for the digital measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) in eyes with glaucoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of DCT in normal eyes and to compare DCT with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and TonoPenXL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study on 323 normal, consecutive eyes was performed. Eyes with an IOP of more than 23 mmHg (GAT) were excluded. Central corneal power (Zeiss Ophthalmometer) and central corneal thickness (ultrasound pachymetry: Tomey AL-1000) were taken. The IOP readings were obtained as follows: 3 x DCT [quality of measurement, IOP and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) were taken], 1 x TonoPenXL, GAT, finally: once again DCT to evaluate the tonography effect. RESULTS: The quality of 3 following IOP (DCT) readings was good (quality Q1 = 43.4 %, Q2 = 32.5 %, Q3 = 22.7 %). The reproducibility of the IOP (DCT) measurements was excellent (first measurement IOP (DCT) = 18.1 +/- 3.4 mmHg, second measurement IOP (DCT) = 18.1 +/- 3.4 mmHg, third measurement IOP (DCT) = 17.8 +/- 3.4 mmHg, Cronbach's alpha = 0.976). First and second IOP (DCT) values showed a strong correlation (r = 0.93). A significant tonography effect was observed between first and third IOP (DCT) measurements (0.4 mmHg; p = 0.004). Mean OPA (DCT) was 3.0 mmHg during the first three measurements (Cronbach's alpha = 0.964). IOP (DCT) and OPA (DCT) reproducibility showed no laterality. IOP (DCT) (17.7 +/- 3.4 mmHg) was significantly higher than IOP (TonoPenXL) (16.0 +/- 3.2 mmHg, n = 275; p < 0.001) and higher than IOP (GAT) (14.5 +/- 3.1 mmHg, n = 275; p < 0.001). The effect of tonography between the third and last IOP (DCT) measurement was zero (p = 0.6). IOP (DCT) and IOP (GAT) values were only weak correlated with central corneal thickness. CONCLUSIONS: IOP and OPA values measured with the DCT are extraordinary reproducible in normal eyes. Frequently, DCT detects higher IOP values than those obtained with TonoPenXL and GAT. A reproducible measurement of IOP and OPA may open new diagnostic fields, e. g., in glaucoma detection or ocular vascular diseases.     

The effect of central corneal thickness on Goldmann tonometry: a retrospective study

International Ophthalmology - To determine the relation between central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure. This retrospective study investigated 112 eyes from 56 individuals who underwent...     

Measurement of intraocular pressure using the Tono-Pen in comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometry - a clinical study in 100 eyes

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice ophthalmologists often need a tonometer which is independent of a slit lamp. Such a hand-held device is the Tono-Pen. We compared the precision of two equal Tono-Pens with Goldmann applanation tonometry. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) was done in 100 eyes of 51 patients (mean age 63 +/- 15 years) suffering from ocular hypertension or glaucoma. According to a random table either the right or left eye was measured using Goldmann tonometer first and the Tono-Pen second. For the other eye the measurement was reversed. One of the two equal Tono-Pens (Solan/USA) was used according to a second random table. Three measurements were obtained with each instrument on both eyes within 15 minutes subsequently. Patients were placed in an upright position for all measurements. RESULTS: Even for well-trained ophthalmologists a learning curve of approximately 10 measurements was observed using the Tono-Pen. The Tono-Pen measured an average IOP of 16.9 mm Hg in all 100 eyes. The Goldmann tonometer measured an average IOP of 17.7 mm Hg. The difference was not statistically significant. The standard deviation for all measurements was better for the Tono-Pen (4.7 mm Hg vs 5.8 mm Hg for Goldmann tonometer). No reduction of the IOP after Tono-Pen measurement was observed (in contrast to the Goldmann tonometer). The reproducibility of the Tono-Pen on the same eye was inferior to the Goldmann tonometer by a factor of 2. There was an almost significant difference in reproducibility between two equal Tono-Pens. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of IOP with the Tono-Pen is comparable to Goldmann applanation tonometry if an average of 3 measurements is used. The difference between two equal Tono-Pens indicates the need for improvement of the quality check during production.     

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。