Comparison of the new rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in a clinical setting

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical usefulness of a new rebound tonometer, Icare^® PRO (Icare PRO), by comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in a study on patients with glaucoma. Methods: One hundred and seventy‐two eyes of 86 subjects were enrolled in this study. All of the subjects were examined with an autorefractometer, Icare PRO, slit‐lamp biomicroscope, GAT, ultrasound A‐scan and pachymeter. Three intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements were obtained by Icare PRO and GAT. The intraobserver reliabilities were established by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients. The Bland–Altman plot was used to compare the Icare PRO and GAT. Results: There was a good correlation between the IOP measurement by GAT and that by Icare PRO (r = 0.6995, p < 0.001). The intraclass correlation coefficients of Icare PRO and GAT were 0.778 and 0.955, respectively. The IOP differences between Icare PRO and GAT (mean: 1.92 mmHg; SD: 3.29 mmHg; 95% limit of agreement: ?4.52 to 8.37 mmHg) did not vary over the wide range of central corneal thickness (p = 0.498), age (p = 0.248), axial length (p = 0.277) or spherical equivalent (p = 0.075). Conclusions: Although IOP with Icare PRO was higher than that with GAT, especially at lower GAT IOP value, Icare PRO was found to be a reliable method and showed a good correlation with GAT. The IOP difference between Icare PRO and GAT was not affected by the central corneal thickness, age, axial length or spherical equivalent. Icare PRO can be expected not only to be a good screening tool but also to be a good substitute for GAT.     

Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients and healthy subjects

PURPOSE: To investigate the agreement in the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) obtained by dynamic contour tonometry PASCAL (DCT-PASCAL) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in glaucoma eyes and healthy eyes with different central corneal thickness (CCT). DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: In a randomized order, three consecutive IOP measurements were performed on 197 eyes of 107 subjects by one examiner using both DCT-PASCAL and GAT on all eyes. Furthermore, ultrasonic pachymetry was performed. The Spearman correlation coefficient (r) was determined to compare IOP readings between DCT-PASCAL and GAT. Regression-based Bland and Altman analysis was used to evaluate agreement between the instruments. RESULTS: Mean IOP values obtained by both instruments were significantly correlated in healthy and glaucoma eyes (all healthy eyes [n = 66]: r = 0.8, P < .001, all glaucoma eyes [n = 131]: r = 0.96, P < .001). Neither GAT nor DCT-PASCAL showed a significant correlation with CCT (GAT: all eyes: r = 0.009, P = .9, DCT-PASCAL: all eyes: r = -0.05, P = .5). Bland and Altman analysis revealed the existence of proportional bias. Thus, 95% limits of agreement between the instruments varied with the actual IOP measurement. CONCLUSIONS: DCT-PASCAL and GAT revealed a strong correlation in IOP measurements between glaucoma and healthy eyes. However, the analysis of agreement indicated some discrepancies between the instruments. Measurements with both GAT and DCT-PASCAL were not correlated with central corneal thickness.     

Evaluation of the Icare-ONE rebound tonometer as a self-measuring intraocular pressure device in normal subjects

Purpose

To compare Icare ONE rebound self-tonometer (ICRBT) measurements with Goldman applanation tonometry (GAT).

Methods

A trained examiner instructed each of 60 normal subjects on use of the ICRBT. Each subject then took two measurements of his/her own pressure using the ICRBT. Finally, a different examiner, who was masked to the earlier readings, measured IOP by GAT. Bland–Altman limits of agreement (LOA), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Kappa values, and paired t-test were used to assess the agreement between the two methods. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used for correlation analysis.

Results

All of the subjects were able to obtain correct measurements with ICRBT after three attempts. The mean intraocular pressure with ICRBT and GAT measurements were 16.0?±?3.3?mmHg and 13.7?±?2.5?mmHg respectively. The mean difference between patient’s ICRBT and technician’s GAT measurements was 2.3?mmHg (p?p?r?=?0.48, p?r?=?0.31, p?=?0.015), indicating that greater thickness is associated with greater differences between the two methods.

Conclusion

The ICRBT was reliable in the hands of normal subjects, and may be used for self-monitoring of IOP. ICRBT measurements generally overestimated GAT measurements.     

Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in relation to central corneal thickness in primary congenital glaucoma

Background

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), and to investigate their relationship to central corneal thickness (CCT) in primary congenital glaucoma (PCG) eyes.

Methods

Thirty-one eyes of 31 PCG patients (25.7?±?7.2 years old) were examined. PCG was defined as elevated IOP, enlarged corneal diameter (buphthalmos), Haab’s striae and abnormal findings at gonioscopy. The mean of three measurements of GAT, DCT (quality scores 1 and 2), and CCT were obtained and assessed for agreement by means of Bland–Altman plot and for Spearman correlation test.

Results

Mean CCT was 534?±?72.3 μm (range: 430 to 610 μm). Mean IOP measurements were 15.1?±?4.2 mmHg (range: 5.5 to 22.7 mmHg) for DCT and 14.5?±?5.6 mmHg (range: 7.0 to 34.0 mmHg) for GAT (P?=?0.244). Spearman correlation tests showed that IOP difference (DCT ? GAT) was not correlated with CCT (r ²?=?0.023, P?=?0.417). IOP measurements by DCT were weakly but statistically correlated with those obtained with GAT (r²?=?0.213, P?=?0.0089). Bland–Altman analysis revealed poor agreement between DCT and GAT readings, considering the 95 % confidence intervals of ±10.45 mmHg.

Conclusions

The differences between DCT and GAT readings were not influenced by CCT in this series of patients. Considering the weak correlation and the poor agreement observed between GAT and DCT measurements and that they both may be affected by corneal biomechanical changes, these methods should not be used interchangeably, and may possibly give no meaningful IOP values in PCG patients.     

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.     

Icare回弹式眼压计与Goldmann压平眼压计眼压测量结果的比较

背景Icare回弹式眼压计作为一种新式眼压计,有必要对它的临床应用价值进行评估。目的通过比较分析Icare回弹式眼压计和Goldmann压平眼压计（GAT）的眼压测量结果,探讨Icare的临床价值。方法可疑青光眼、青光眼、屈光不正及部分健康体检者78例共152眼同时接受Icare、GAT眼压测量,受检眼先行Icare测量,然后再进行GAT测量,2次测量间隔3～5min。对比分析两种眼压计的测量结果。结果使用Icare和GAT测得的眼压均值分别为（19．16±5．03）mmHg和（18．41±4．52）mmHg,96眼（63．2％）两者的眼压差值≤1mmHg,二者的测量值差异虽有统计学意义,但二者的变化呈明显正相关（r=0．940,P〈0．01）。当Icare眼压测量值〈16mmHg时,Icare的眼压测量值低于GAT,而当Icare眼压测量值≥16mmHg时恰好相反;CCT偏薄、正常以及偏厚的情况下,Icare的眼压测量值均高于GAT的眼压测量值。Icare、GAT的眼压测量值和CCT间呈正相关（r=0．341,P〈0．01;r=0．333,P〈0．01）。结论与GAT眼压计比较,Icare回弹式眼压计易操作,测量结果可靠,临床实用性更强。     

Evaluation of the pressure phosphene tonometer as a self-tonometer

PURPOSE: Different from conventional tonometers, the pressure phosphene tonometer (FPT) measures intraocular pressure (IOP) through the upper eyelid without corneal applanation. We evaluated the usefulness of the FPT as a self-tonometer by comparing FPT IOP readings with those obtained with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). We also evaluated the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements obtained with the two different devices. METHODS: We confirmed the repeatability of FPT measurements in a preliminary study. The main investigation formed part of a prospective clinical trial, in which IOP was measured in 101 eyes of 101 participants (55 normal and 46 glaucomatous eyes) using GAT and FPT. FPT measurements were self-acquired by each participant. CCT was measured with an ultrasonic pachymeter. The agreement between FPT and GAT measurements was evaluated by the method of Bland and Altman. Using individual IOP and CCT values, we determined the correlation coefficients and performed regression analysis. RESULTS: FPT met the British Standard criteria for reproducibility. Among 101 participants, seven patients with glaucoma were unable to detect the pressure phosphene and to measure IOP using the FPT. By the statistical method of Bland and Altman there was a significant difference between FPT readings self-measured by the remaining 94 participants and GAT readings obtained by an ophthalmologist. There was no correlation between FPT and CCT readings in 65 participants with no prior history of anti-glaucoma medications or glaucoma surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Self-tonometer FPT readings differed from GAT readings. However, we suggest that the FPT may be a clinically acceptable device because it enables patients to self-measure their IOP easily and safely. As FPT readings are not affected by CCT, this tonometer may be of clinical and practical value for the at-will measurement of IOP in patients with corneal changes.     

中央角膜厚度对3种眼压计眼压测量值的影响

目的比较分析不同中央角膜厚度(central corneal thickness,CCT)下Icare回弹式眼压计、Goldmann压平式眼压计(Goldmann applanation tonometer,GAT)和动态轮廓眼压计(dynamic contour tonometry,DCT)的眼压测量结果,探讨CCT对3种眼压计测量值的影响。方法 对78例患者152眼分别用Icare、GAT、DCT3种眼压计进行眼压测量,并进行CCT的测量,对比不同CCT下3种眼压计的测量结果,分析眼压测量值与CCT的关系。结果 在全部受测者中Icare、GAT、DCT测得的眼压均值分别为(19.16±5.03)mmHg(1 kPa=7.5 mmHg)、(18.41±4.52)mmHg和(17.23±3.69)mmHg,三者之间有显著差异(F=7.256,P=0.001)。Icare和GAT的眼压测量值均与CCT显著相关(r=0.341,P<0.001;r=0.333,P<0.001),CCT每改变10μm,Icare的眼压值改变0.47 mmHg,GAT的眼压值改变0.41 mmHg;而DCT的眼压测量值与CCT无显著相关(r=0.032,P=0.699)。结论 Icare、GAT的眼压测量值均明显受CCT的影响,而Icare受CCT影响的程度较GAT的稍大,DCT的眼压测量值基本不受CCT的影响。     

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.     

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.     

Comparison of iCare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry in normal corneas and in eyes with automated lamellar and penetrating keratoplasty

Purpose

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and iCare tonometry in normal and post-keratoplasty corneas and to assess the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal curvature (CC), and corneal astigmatism (CA) on IOP.

Methods

This prospective cross-sectional study included one eye of 101 subjects with normal corneas (58 healthy subjects, 43 glaucoma); and 90 post-keratoplasty patients: 34 penetrating keratoplasties (PK); 20 automated-lamellar-therapeutic keratoplasties (ALTK); 19 Descemet-stripping-automated-endothelial keratoplasties (DSAEK); 17 edematous grafts. All subjects underwent GAT and iCare IOP measurements in random order, and CCT, CC, and CA evaluation. The Bland–Altman method and multivariate regression analysis were used to assess inter-tonometer agreement and the influence of CCT, CC, and CA on IOP.

Results

iCare significantly underestimated IOP in all groups compared with GAT (GAT minus iCare of 3.5±3.5 mm Hg, P<0.001), but overestimated IOP in the edematous grafts (GAT minus iCare of −6.5±1.9 mm Hg, P<0.001). In normal corneas, both tonometer measurements were directly related to CCT values; iCare readings appeared inversely related to CC. There was no significant relationship between IOP and CCT, CC and CA in post-keratoplasty eyes, except between CC and iCare measurements for PK eyes.

Conclusions

The agreement between GAT and iCare was clinically acceptable in control, ALTK and DSAEK groups, and poor in PK and edematous grafts eyes. In normal corneas, GAT was significantly affected by CCT; iCare was influenced by CCT and CC. The iCare appeared less influenced by corneal edema when compared with GAT. High IOP readings taken with both tonometers in grafts should raise suspicion of true elevated IOP.     

Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer

PURPOSE: The Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) proposes to measure corneal biomechanical properties in vivo by monitoring and analyzing the corneal behavior when this structure is submitted to a force induced by an air jet. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between corneal biomechanical properties and corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPCC) measurements as obtained by the ORA and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) measurements. DESIGN: Observational clinical study. METHODS: The study included 153 eyes of 78 subjects. All subjects underwent IOP evaluation with the ORA and GAT, and also measurements of central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal curvature, and axial length. Univariable and multivariable regression analysis were used to evaluate the associations between IOP (as measured with GAT and ORA) and CCT, corneal curvature, axial length, and age. Bland and Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement between IOP measurements obtained by GAT and ORA. RESULTS: GAT IOP measurements were significantly associated with CCT (P=0.001) and corneal curvature (P<0.001), whereas ORA IOPCC measurements were not associated with any of the ocular variables. The difference between GAT and IOPCC measurements was significantly influenced by corneal thickness. Patients with thicker corneas tended to have higher GAT IOP measurements compared with IOPCC, whereas in patients with thin corneas, GAT IOP measurements tended to be lower than IOPCC. CONCLUSIONS: ORA IOPCC measurements seem to provide an estimate of IOP that is less influenced by corneal properties than those provided by GAT.     

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.     

Hornhautdickenunabhängige Methoden der Messung des Augeninnendrucks

Introduction

Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) has been the gold standard for measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) for about 50 years. However, it depends on central corneal thickness (CCT) and is, therefore, prone to being incorrect. Dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) has recently been introduced to measure IOP independently of CCT; however, DCT is costly and difficult. IOP measurement using the ocular response analyzer (ORA) offers noncontact tonometry with declaration of the corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc), which takes corneal hysteresis (CH) into account and is supposed to be independent of CCT.

Patients and methods

Using the ORA instrument, IOPcc was determined in 192 glaucoma eyes and 59 nonglaucoma eyes. Subsequently, measurement by DCT and GAT was performed. IOP measurements were compared and analyzed with respect to CCT and CH.

Results

Average values were as follows: IOPcc, 18.38±6.3 mmHg; GAT, 14.69±4.5 mmHg; DCT, 15.17±3.9 mmHg; CH, 9.96±2.5 mmHg; CCT, 552±57 μm. Neither CCT nor CH differed between the two groups. There was a positive correlation between GAT and CCT that did not exist for IOPcc and DCT values. However, IOPcc and DCT differed significantly in Bland–Altman analysis (p<0.01). Furthermore, these two IOP values differed significantly with respect to CH and the level of IOP.

Conclusion

Because IOPcc is not a primarily measured variable but also takes CH into account, a direct comparison of DCT and IOPcc values is not acceptable, and a simple correction factor may not be valid.     

三种不同眼压计眼压测量值的比较

目的:比较分析Icare回弹式眼压计、GAT和DCT的眼压测量结果,探讨Icare回弹式眼压计的临床性能。方法:78例152眼分别用Icare,GAT,DCT3种眼压计进行眼压测量,然后根据测得的眼压高低分为高眼压、中眼压、低眼压3个组,对比分析3种眼压计的测量结果。结果:在全部受测者中Icare,GAT,DCT测得的眼压均值分别为19.16±5.03mmHg,18.41±4.52mmHg和17.23±3.69mmHg,每两种眼压计相比均有显著差别,但是彼此之间密切相关。高、中、低3个眼压组两种眼压计之间的差值均随着眼压的增高而增大。结论:使用Icare测量的眼压值准确可信,Icare,GAT和DCT的眼压值彼此之间具有良好的相关性。     

Comparation of the new rebound tonometer IOPen and the Goldmann tonometer, and their relationship to corneal properties

Purpose

To compare the intraocular pressures (IOPs) obtained with the IOPen rebound tonometer, Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and the ocular response analyzer (ORA) and investigate the effects of corneal biomechanical properties on IOPen measurements.

Methods

A total of 198 normal eyes were included in this cross-sectional and randomized study. Three measurements were taken using IOPen. Agreement between tonometers was calculated using the Bland and Altman limits of agreement (LoA) analysis.

Results

The median IOPen IOP was 3 mm Hg below the GAT (P<0.001), 3 mm Hg below the ORA IOP similar to Goldmann (IOPg), and 3 mm Hg below the ORA IOP corrected using corneal parameters (IOPcc)(P<0.01). The LoA width between the IOPen and GAT IOPs varied between 13.92 (mean IOPen IOP) and 15.99 mm Hg (third IOPen measurement). The central corneal thickness (CCT) was unrelated to IOPen measurements (P>0.05). Corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal rigidity factor (CRF) were correlated with IOPen and GAT.

Conclusions

IOPen underestimated the IOP compared with GAT and ORA. The effect of measurement quality or measurement order on IOPen was low. CCT did not affect the IOPen, but the CH and CRF did. The LoA width between the IOPen and GAT IOPs was higher than between the ORA IOPg or ORA IOPcc and GAT IOPs.     

Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in deep lamellar and penetrating keratoplasties

PURPOSE: To compare the measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) with dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in eyes with corneal graft and to evaluate the influence of corneal thickness (CCT), corneal curvature (CC), and astigmatism on these methods. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cross-sectional study. METHODS: Eighteen eyes of 18 patients after penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) and 14 eyes of 14 patients after deep lamellar keratoplasty (DLKP) underwent IOP evaluation with DCT and GAT, and measurements of CCT, CC, and astigmatism. Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement between tonometers. Multivariate regression analysis was used to evaluate the influence of ocular structural factors and running suture on IOP measurements obtained with both tonometers. RESULTS: IOP values obtained by DCT and GAT were strongly correlated in all eyes (r = .91; P < .001). DCT values measured 2.5 +/- 1.7 mm Hg higher than GAT readings (P < .001). A reduction of the mean IOP difference between DCT and GAT with an increase in IOP values (P < .001) was found. Regression analysis showed no effect of CCT, CC, astigmatism, and running suture on both DCT and GAT readings, either in DLKP or in PKP eyes. CONCLUSIONS: We found a good overall correlation between both tonometers but the agreement between instruments differs in high or low IOP ranges. The wide and varying 95% limits of agreement between DCT and GAT indicates that DCT provides IOP measurements on deep lamellar and penetrating keratoplasties which can be used in the clinical practice.     

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.

     

中央角膜厚度、角膜曲率对Goldmann压平眼压计和非接触眼压计测量结果的影响

目的 探讨中央角膜厚度和角膜曲率对Goldmann压平眼压计(GAT)和非接触眼压计(NCT)测量结果 的影响.方法 比较性研究.选择120例门诊患者作为研究对象.应用超声角膜测厚仪测量患者中央角膜厚度,采用多功能验光仪测量角膜曲率,应用GAT和NCT测量受检者双眼眼压.应用SPSS 12.0统计学软件进行数据处理.采用直线回归法比较两种眼压计的测量结果 ,采用多重线性同归法分析中央角膜厚度、角膜曲率与两种眼压计所测眼压值的关系,应用Bland-Altman法比较NCT和GAT两种方法 对眼压测最结果 的影响.结果 GAT与NCT测量的平均眼压值分别为(18.4±4.0)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)和(17.0±4.6)mm Hg,差异有统计学意义(r=0.835,P=0.000).GAT和NCT测量的眼压值均受中央角膜厚度和角膜曲率的影响.中央角膜厚度每增加1μm,GAT测量眼压值增加0.039 mm Hg,而NCT测量眼压值增加0.064 mm Hg.角膜曲率半径每增加1 mm,GAT测最眼压值减少2.648 mm Hg,NCT测量眼压值减少3.190 nun Hg.中央角膜厚度对NCT测量眼压值的影响较其对于GAT测量眼压值的影响大.随着眼压的升高,NCT测最眼压值呈现出由低于GAT测量值到高于GAT测量值的逐渐变化趋势.结论 中央角膜厚度和角膜曲率均会影响NCT和GAT测量眼压值,而且中央角膜厚度对NCT测量眼压值的影响较其对GAT测量眼压值的影响大.     

Goldmann-Applanationstonometrie und dynamische Konturtonometrie

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements between Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) during product certification according to the international requirements for ophthalmic instruments (tonometers, ISO 8612:2001). METHODS: The study included 160 eyes of 80 subjects. IOP measurements were performed four times consecutively on each instrument in randomized order. The difference of mean IOP measurements between GAT and DCT was analyzed. Furthermore, Bland and Altman analysis was performed to assess agreement between the instruments. RESULTS: The mean difference between DCT and GAT IOP measurements was 0.30+/-2.18 mmHg. At low to normal IOP values of 7-16 mmHg and higher IOP values of > or =23 mmHg, the difference between DCT IOP measurements and GAT IOP measurements increased in the opposite direction (1.44+/-1.59 mmHg and -1.47+/-2.57 mmHg). The Bland and Altman analysis revealed a fixed bias of -0.4+/-2.0 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: The test tonometer DCT exceeds the requirements for the international standard for tonometers ISO 8612:2001. The results are valid for a central corneal thickness of 540+/-40 microm.