Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of applanation tonometers

PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement of iCare rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) with Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Tonopen XL, and noncontact tonometer, and the influence of the central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements made with these four tonometers in 45 (12 control and 33 glaucomatous or ocular hypertensive) eyes. DESIGN: Clinically relevant experimental study. METHODS: Tonometer intermethod agreement was assessed by the Bland-Altman method. The relations of CCT with absolute IOP values and intertonometer differences were analyzed by linear regression. RESULTS: The mean differences (95% limits of agreement) in IOP readings between iCare and GAT, Tonopen XL, and noncontact tonometer were 1.40 +/- 4.29, 0.00 +/- 4.78, and 2.22 +/- 4.19 mm Hg, respectively. All tonometries had a marked association with CCT. As the CCT got thicker, iCare considerably overestimated GAT and Tonopen XL. CONCLUSIONS: Although influenced by CCT, iCare agrees well with applanation tonometers.     

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.     

Comparison of the rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients

PURPOSE: To determine the agreement between the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) by the rebound tonometer (RBT) and by the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and to find out the effect of central corneal thickness (CCT) values on IOP measurements in glaucoma patients. METHODS: IOP was measured with the RBT and GAT, respectively, in 61 eyes of 61 glaucoma patients. CCT was measured using an ultrasonic pachymeter after all IOP determinations had been made. The mean IOP measurement by the RBT was compared with the measurement by the GAT, by Student's t-test. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the clinical agreement between the two methods. The effect of CCT on measured IOP was explored by linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 56.7+/-21.1 years (range: 30-80 years). There were 32 (52.46%) women and 29 (47.54%) men in the study group. The mean IOP readings were 18.70+/-4.76 mmHg using the RBT, and 18.27+/-3.49 mmHg using the GAT. The difference was not statistically significant (mean difference 0.43+/-2.55, P=0.2). A frequency distribution of the differences demonstrated that in more than 80% of cases the IOP readings differed by <2.3 mmHg between the RBT and GAT. There was a strong correlation between the RBT and GAT readings (r=0.852, P<0.0001). The IOP measurements with the two methods were correlated with CCT (r=0.40, P=0.02 for the RBT and r=0.48, P<0.0001 for the GAT). The IOP increased 1.1 mmHg and 8 mmHg for every 100-microm increase in CCT for the GAT and RBT, respectively. CONCLUSION: The RBT slightly overestimated the IOP value by 0.43 mmHg on average when compared with the GAT. Nevertheless, the RBT readings appeared to be more affected by the various thicknesses of different corneas when compared with those obtained using the GAT.     

The influence of refractive errors on IOP measurement by rebound tonometry (ICare) and Goldmann applanation tonometry

Purpose  

To evaluate the effect of refractive errors and central corneal thickness (CCT) on the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) by ICare rebound tonometer (RT), and its agreement with measurements by Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT).     

Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients

PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) readings taken with the new ICare tonometer and with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and to evaluate the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on the IOP measurements. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One eye of 178 consecutive patients with primary open-angle glaucoma underwent ultrasonic CCT measurement, followed by IOP evaluation with the GAT and with the ICare tonometer. The deviation of ICare readings from GAT values, corrected according to the Doughty and Zaman formula, was calculated and correlated to CCT by a linear regression model. The agreement between the 2 devices was assessed by use of the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: The average CCT was 552+/-39 mum. The mean IOP and the mean corrected IOP with GAT were 19.4+/-5.4 mm Hg, and 18.5+/-5.7 mm Hg, respectively. The mean ICare IOP reading was 18.4+/-5.2 mm Hg. The deviations of ICare readings from corrected GAT values were highly correlated with CCT values (r=0.63, P<0.01). Linear regression analysis showed that a CCT change of 10 mum resulted in an ICare reading deviation of 0.7 mm Hg. The Bland-Altman scatter-plot showed a reasonable agreement between the 2 tonometers. CONCLUSIONS: The ICare tonometer can be useful in a routine clinical setting. The IOP readings are quite in accordance with those obtained by GAT. The measurements seemed to be influenced by CCT variations, and thus pachymetry should always be taken into consideration.     

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.     

Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements

PURPOSE: To establish correlations between intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the ocular response analyzer (ORA) and the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). The effects of central corneal thickness on the measures obtained were also examined. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. IOP was determined in 48 eyes of 48 patients with glaucoma In all patients, central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured by ultrasound pachymetry. RESULTS: ORA readings were consistently higher than GAT measurements (Goldmann-correlated IOP - IOP GAT mean difference, 7.2 +/- 3.5 mm Hg; corneal-compensated IOP - IOP GAT mean difference, 8.3 +/- 4.0 mm Hg) However, differences were not constant and increased with increasing IOP GAT readings, both with respect to Goldmann-correlated IOP (slope = 0.623, P < 0.0001) and corneal-compensated IOP (slope = 0.538, P < 0.0001). Both pressure measurements provided by the ORA showed significant correlation with CCT (CCT versus Goldmann-correlated IOP: r = 0.460, P = 0.001; CCT versus corneal-compensated IOP: r = 0.442, P = 0.001). No significant effects of corneal curvature or refraction on any of the pressures were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The ORA significantly overestimates IOP compared with the GAT. Differences between both sets of measures increase as the GAT-determined IOP increases. ORA readings seem to be affected by central corneal thickness.     

Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldmann applanation tonometry

PURPOSE: The dynamic contour tonometer (DCT; Pascal tonometer) is a novel tonometer designed to measure intraocular pressure (IOP) independent of corneal properties. The purpose of this study was a comparison of the DCT with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) with respect to mean of IOP readings, the influence of ocular structural factors on IOP readings, and both intra- and interobserver variability, in a large group of healthy subjects. METHODS: In a prospective study of 228 eyes, IOP measurements by GAT and DCT were compared, and the effects of central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal curvature, axial length, and anterior chamber depth were analyzed. To evaluate intra- and interobserver variability, IOP was measured in eight eyes by four observers. RESULTS: There was a high concordance between the IOP readings obtained by DCT and GAT. However, IOP readings were consistently higher with DCT than with GAT (median difference: +1.7 mm Hg, interquartile range [25th-75th percentile] = 0.8-2.7 mm Hg). In contrast to GAT, multivariable regression analysis showed no significant effect of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, astigmatism, anterior chamber depth, and axial length on DCT readings. For repeated measurements the intraobserver variability was 0.65 mm Hg for the DCT and 1.1 mm Hg for the GAT (P = 0.008). Interobserver variability was 0.44 mm Hg for the DCT and 1.28 mm Hg for the GAT (P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: IOP measurements by DCT are highly concordant with IOP readings obtained from GAT but do not vary in CCT and have a lower intra- and interobserver variability. DCT seems to be an appropriate method of tonometry for routine clinical use.     

Comparison of rebound and applanation tonometry in the management of patients treated for glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

AIM: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values obtained with the iCare rebound tonometer (RBT) with values obtained with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension, and to evaluate the impact of possible differences on management decisions. METHODS: The IOP was measured with the iCare RBT and GAT in 45 consecutive patients in a nurse-led glaucoma unit. The outcome measures were the IOP difference between the methods and the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) for IOP measurements. In all subjects where the IOP readings differed by >3 mmHg between the RBT and GAT, two ophthalmologists were independently asked to recommend treatment and/or follow-up intervals, based on the patients' clinical data and the IOP values. RESULTS: The RBT overestimated the IOP compared with GAT in 67% of the cases (30/45). In 78% (35/45) the IOP difference was within +/-3 mmHg. When an extreme value of 15 mmHg difference was excluded, the 95% LoA was +/-4.31 mmHg. In five of the 10 patients with an IOP difference of > +/- 3 mmHg the difference would have led to change in therapy; in three more patients the follow-up interval would have been changed. In the remaining two patients the difference in IOP would not have led to any change in management. CONCLUSIONS: The mean difference between RBT and GAT was small (1.5 +/- 3 mmHg) compared with the published repeatability of GAT values. Yet, the difference was found to have clinical implications in 18% (8/45) of the patients.     

Comparison of Goldmann tonometry, pneumotonometry and the effect of the central corneal thickness

PurposeTo compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and contact pneumotonometer (NTC), and to evaluate the effects of central corneal thickness (CCT) on the readings.MethodsThis was a prospective, observational clinical study, which included 96 eyes of 49 patients, 40 glaucomatous, 29 ocular hypertensive and 27 normal subjects. The IOP measurements were performed with each tonometer. The CCT was also measured.ResultsA strong correlation coefficient between GAT and the NTC was found (Pearson = 0.922, p < 0.001). The mean of paired differences between GAT and NTC was 0.72 ± 2.82 mmHg. The mean difference between GAT and NTC was low at lower levels of PIO and higher at higher levels of IOP. Readings with the GAT showed a mean increase in IOP of 0.47 mmHg for every 10 μm of CCT, and the NTC 0.34 mmHg for every 10 μm, the diference was not statistically significant.ConclusionsThe contact pneumotonometer is a reliable method in diagnosis and follow up of our population. The effect of the central corneal thickness was more important for the Goldmann applanation tonometer.     

Comparison of IOP measurements between ORA and GAT in normal Chinese.

PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) obtained from the ocular response analyzer (ORA) and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) on a group of normal Chinese. METHODS: One hundred twenty-five normal subjects were recruited, with one eye randomly selected for this study. Each eye was measured first with the noncontact tonometer ORA, followed by the GAT and ultrasound pachometry, in a randomized order. Four readings were obtained from the ORA, and three measurements were taken with the GAT. The mean was used for analysis. The ORA provided a Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg) and a corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc). Three central corneal thickness (CCT) values were measured using an ultrasound pachometer, and the mean was used for analysis. RESULTS: IOP obtained from the ORA was similar to that from the GAT (IOPg minus GAT: mean difference = 0.33 mm Hg, 95% limits of agreement = 4.55 to -4.44 mm Hg; IOPcc minus GAT: mean difference = 0.24 mm Hg, 95% limits of agreement = 4.83 to -5.07 mm Hg). CCT was positively associated with corneal hysteresis (CH) (r2 = 0.30, p < 0.01), corneal resistance factor (r2 = 0.38, p < 0.01), GAT (r2 = 0.09, p < 0.01) and IOPg (r2 = 0.16, p < 0.01). IOPcc was not associated with CCT (r2 = 0.01, p = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Both IOPg and IOPcc have good agreement with GAT on normal subjects. The influence of CCT on IOPcc was insignificant.     

Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry

AIMS: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (PDCT) with the standard Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and to correlate these with central corneal thickness (CCT) in patients with normal corneas. METHODS: A prospective, masked, comparative case series of 116 eyes from patients attending a glaucoma clinic. IOP was measured with PDCT by one examiner and with GAT by a masked, independent examiner. A mean of six CCT readings was used for analysis. RESULTS: IOP measured by the two instruments correlated significantly (r=0.77; P<0.0001). IOP measured by GAT correlated strongly with CCT (r=0.37, P=0.0001) whereas the relationship between IOP measured by PDCT and CCT approached significance (r=0.17, P=0.073). The differences between GAT and PDCT measured IOP also correlated strongly with CCT (r=0.37, P<0.0001). The 95% limits of agreement between GAT and PDCT were +/-4.2 mmHg. Dividing the eyes into three groups on the basis of CCT, demonstrated those in the thickest tertile showed a poorer agreement between instruments and the GAT measured significantly higher IOP in this group (P=0.003) while the PDCT showed no significant differences with different CCTs (P=0.37). CONCLUSION: Demonstration of the relative independence of PDCT IOP measurements from CCT supports a potential clinical role for this instrument, particularly for subjects with CCT outside the normal range.     

iCare回弹式眼压计的临床应用评价

目的比较iCare回弹式眼压计（RBT）测量的眼压值与Goldmann压平眼压计（GAT）测量眼压值的差异,评价RBT测量眼压的可靠性及可重复性。方法对正常志愿者9例9眼同时使用iCareRBT和GAT进行测量,比较二者眼压测量结果的重复性。对GAT眼压在正常范围内的受试者（包括可疑青光眼患者和眼压控制良好的青光眼患者）45例45眼分别用RBT和GAT进行测量,使用配对t检验、相关分析及Bland-Altman图一致性检验等方法比较二者测量结果的一致性。由2位操作者使用同一台RBT对13位正常志愿者13眼进行测量,通过组内相关系数比较各自测量结果的重复性,从而评价不同操作者对iCareRBT测量结果的影响,模拟真实临床工作环境。结果 RBT组眼压读数的组内相关系数为0.821（95%CI：0.553～0.952）,GAT组眼压读数的组内相关系数为0.846（95%CI：0.604～0.959）,表明2种仪器的测量重复性均较好,但尚不能说明何种更好。RBT和GAT测得的眼压分别为（14.42±3.49）mmHg和（16.18±2.68）mmHg,二者呈正相关（r=0.684,P〈0.01）;但RBT所测的眼压读数略低于GAT,差异有统计学意义（t=4.601,P〈0.01）。Bland-Altman图显示二者的差值为（-1.76±2.56）mmHg,95%CI：（-6.77～3.26）。使用RBT所测眼压值的组内相关系数分别为0.827（95%CI：0.626～0.938）和0.697（95%CI：0.413～0.884）。结论 RBT与GAT所测得的眼压值在正常范围内,具有较好的相关性,2种眼压计测量的重复性均较好,而不同操作者测量的重复性不完全一致。     

Intraocular pressure measurement over soft contact lens by rebound tonometer:a comparative study

AIM: To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements by Icare rebound tonometer over a contact lens in comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT).METHODS: Fifty patients using contact lens were included in this study. One of the eyes of the patients was selected randomly and their IOP were measured by rebound tonometer with and without contact lens (RTCL, RT respectively) and by GAT, as well as their central corneal thickness (CCT) by optical pachymeter. The results of both methods were compared by correlation analysis, general linear method repeated measure and Bland-Altman analysis.RESULTS: Mean IOP values measured by RTCL, RT and GAT were 15.68±3.7, 14.50±3.4 and 14.16±2.8 (P<0.001), respectively. Mean IOP by RTCL was significantly higher than the measurements implemented by RT and GAT (P<0.001), while there was no difference between the measurements by GAT and RT (P=0.629). There was a good level of positive correlation between GAT and RTCL as well as RT (r=0.786 P<0.001, r=0.833 P<0.001, respectively). We have observed that CCT increase did not show any correlation with the differences of the measurements between RTCL and RT (P=0.329), RTCL and GAT (P=0.07) as well as RT and GAT (P=0.189) in linear regression model.CONCLUSION: The average of the measurements over contact lens by rebound tonometer was found to be higher than what was measured by GAT. Although this difference is statistically significant, it may be clinically negligible in the normal population.     

iCare回弹式眼压计测量的重复性及与Goldmann压平式眼压计测量值间的一致性研究

背景Goldmann压平式眼压计（GAT）是眼压测量的金标准,但由于操作复杂且需要良好配合而影响其临床应用。iCare回弹式眼压计（RBT）是一种新型的压平式眼压计,但需进行充分的临床应用评价。目的对iCareRBT检查者间及检查者内测量的可重复性及iCareRBT与GAT测量值间的一致性进行研究。方法2位操作者使用iCareRBT对36例青光眼及可疑青光眼患者双眼各测量1次,分别记录读数,对iCareRBT检查者间的重复性进行评价。2位操作者使用iCareRBT分别测量56例青光眼和52例青光眼患者,并对可疑青光眼患者的双眼进行测量,并记录眼压读数,对iCareRBT检查者内的重复性进行评价。检查者2对青光眼及可疑青光眼患者92例182眼先使用iCareRBT进行测量,然后检查者1使用Goldmann压平式眼压计进行测量,对iCareRBT和GAT的测量值进行一致性检验,并评价iCareRBT测量眼压的安全性。结果iCareRBT检查者间眼压测量值相关因子r右眼为0．937,左眼为0．887;检查者1对右眼和左眼重复测量眼压值的r值分别为0．986、0．969,检查者2所测右眼和左眼的r值分别为0．990、0．979;iCareRBT测量值与CAT测量值的均值分别为（18．74±8．36）mmHg、（19．33±8．20）mmHg,二者差值为（-0．59±2．60）mmHg,95％CI为（-5．80～4．60）,2种测量法相关因子r为0．951。所有受试者对iCareRBT的测量无不适反应。结论iCareRBT具有检查者间和检查者内的高度可重复性及很好的耐受性,iCareRBT测量值与GAT测量值间具有高度相关性。     

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。     

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.     

角膜厚度对三种不同眼压计测量的影响

目的:比较采用Goldmann压平眼压计(Goldmann applanation tonometer,GAT)、非接触眼压计(non-contact tonometer,NCT)和Schiotz眼压计(Schiotz tonometer,ST)的眼压(intraoeular pressure,IOP)测量,评估角膜中央厚度(central corneal thickness,CCT)对读数的影响。方法:使用GAT、NCT和ST对所有患者的右眼进行眼压测量。超声角膜厚度测量法测定CCT。所有IOP及CCT测量由同一检查者进行。计算CCT25%(Q1)百分位数和75%(Q3)百分位数值,并通过这种方法将该组分为薄、中、厚角膜亚组。使用Statplus软件进行统计分析。结果:全系列144眼,GAT测量平均IOP为17.4±4.9mmHg,NCT为16.0±5.8mmHg,ST为14.0±4.0mmHg(Friedman方差分析P<0.01)。IOP水平和CCT之间的相关系数NCT为0.787(P<0.01),GAT为0.630(P<0.01),ST为0.565(P<0.01)。ST测量中,纠正的IOP误差和CCT之间的相关性在厚角膜明显弱(r=0.381,P=0.022)。结论:NCT是最易受不同CCT影响的设备。ST读数似乎比GAT和NCT读数受CCT的影响小。特别是在厚角膜,与NCT和GAT相比,ST可以被认为是一个更可靠的仪器。     

Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry

PURPOSE: To establish the reproducibility of a rebound tonometer in humans and the effect of corneal thickness on measurements, comparing it with Goldmann applanation tonometer. METHODS: In a first study designed to examine the reliability of the RBT, three experienced ophthalmologists undertook three consecutive intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements in 12 eyes of 12 normal subjects. A cross-sectional study was then performed to compare measurements obtained using the two tonometers in 147 eyes of 85 patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. RESULTS: Intraobserver coefficients of correlation obtained in the reproducibility study were 0.82, 0.73, and 0.87. Interobserver correlation was 0.82. There was a good correlation between IOP readings obtained by the RBT and the GAT (r = 0.865, P < 0.0001). RBT readings were consistently higher than GAT measurements (median difference, 1.8 +/- 2.8 mm Hg). A Bland-Altman plot indicated the 95% limits of agreement between the two methods were -3.7 to 7.3 mm Hg (slope = -0.022, P = 0.618). Using RBT, the point that best discriminated between patients with an IOP < or = 21 mm Hg and those with >21 mm Hg, as determined by the GAT was >23 mm Hg (sensitivity, 70.5%; specificity, 95.1%). In terms of pachymetry, the two tonometers behaved in a similar way, with correlation observed between IOP measurements and central corneal thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Rebound tonometry is a reproducible method of determining IOP in humans. In general, it tends to overestimate IOP compared with Goldmann applanation tonometry. The tonometers used in both methods are similarly affected by pachymetry.     

Effects of central corneal thickness and corneal curvature on the intraocular pressure measurement by Goldmann applanation tonometer and ocular blood flow pneumatonometer

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal curvature (CC) on the measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) using Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and the ocular blood flow pneumatonometer (OBFT). METHODS: 104 patients were recruited from a glaucoma clinic. The CCT was measured using ultrasound pachymetry and the mean radius of CC using a keratometer. The IOP of each eye was measured using both GAT and the OBFT in a random order. Right eyes only were analysed for statistical purposes. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) IOP by GAT and OBFT was 18.2 mmHg (+/-4.4) and 18.2 mmHg (+/-4.0), respectively, with no statistically significant difference. IOP measurement with both instruments varied with CCT and CC. GAT showed an IOP increase of 0.40 mmHg per 10 microm increase of CCT and OBFT showed an increase of 0.38 mmHg in IOP per 10 microm increase of CCT. Multiple regression analysis showed that the effect of CCT was statistically significant (P<0.001) on IOP recorded by both the GAT and OBFT but CC did not have a statistically significant effect on IOP recordings performed by either technique. CONCLUSION: IOP measurements by GAT and OBFT are positively correlated with CCT with both tonometers being similarly affected. There was no significant correlation between CC and IOP measured by either tonometer.