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.     

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。     

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 dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry following penetrating keratoplasty

Objective: To evaluate dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) versus Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements in eyes that underwent penetrating keratoplasty (PKP).Design: Prospective, cross-sectional, observational study.Participants: Thirty-one eyes of 28 patients were examined after PKP.Methods: All eyes had undergone PKP with interrupted sutures. The postoperative period was more than 1 year for 25 eyes and less than 1 year for 6. Sutures were removed based on corneal topography and refraction. IOP was measured by both DCT and GAT methods and was correlated to the number of remaining sutures.Results: IOP readings were successfully obtained in 25/31 (80.6%) with DTC and in 21/31 (67.7%) with GAT (p = 0.25). In eyes with fewer than 4 remaining sutures, both methods were successful. In eyes with more than 4 sutures, the success rates of DCT and GAT were 66.7% and 44.4%, respectively (p = 0.18). In PKPs with a postoperative period of more than 1 year, the success rates of DCT and GAT were 96% and 84%, respectively (p = 0.16). In 20 eyes, both methods measured the IOP. The mean IOP obtained by DCT (16.6 [SD 2.8] mm Hg) was higher than the mean IOP obtained from GAT (15.1 [SD 3.6] mm Hg). The IOPs from the 2 instruments correlated significantly (p < 0.05) and the mean difference was 1.5 mm Hg.Conclusions: The success rate in measuring IOP with DCT and GAT did not show any statistically significant difference. Both methods were less effective measuring the IOP after recent PKPs and regrafts. However, DCT seemed to be superior to GAT in corneas with more than 4 remaining sutures and in PKPs performed more than 1 year earlier. The absolute values of IOP were higher with DCT than with GAT.     

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.     

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.     

不同角膜厚度下动态轮廓眼压计和Goldmann压平眼压计在不同角膜厚度的测量值比较

目的比较动态轮廓眼压计（dynamic contour to-nometry,DCT）和Goldmann压平眼压计（Goldmann applanation tonometry,GAT）在中央角膜厚度（central corneal thickness,CCT）不同的正常眼测量值的差异。方法患者69例（69眼）按CCT不同分为正常组（520～580μm）42眼、变薄组（450～520μm）16眼、增厚组（580～640μm）11眼。各组分别用DCT和GAT测量眼压。结果正常组平均CCT为（574.55±16.40）μm,平均GAT值为（16.62±3.15）mmHg（1kPa=7.5mmHg）,平均DCT值为（16.78±2.86）mmHg,DCT与GAP差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,平均GAT-DCT值为（-0.16±0.96）mmHg;变薄组平均CCT为（499.44±16.70）μm,平均GAT值为（14.03±2.72）mmHg,平均DCT值为（17.06±2.72）mmHg,2者差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）,平均GAT-DCT值为（-3.03±1.32）mmHg;增厚组平均CCT为（605.18±17.90）μm,平均GAT值为（16.91±3.94）mmHg,平均DCT值为（16.80±4.25）mmHg,2者差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,平均GAT-DCT值为（0.05±2.47）mmHg。结论在角膜厚度正常眼,DCT值和GAT值较一致;在角膜厚度变薄眼,前者较后者准确;在角膜厚度变厚眼未体现DCT的优越性。     

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.     

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。     

动态轮廓眼压计监测LASIK手术前后眼压变化

目的比较动态轮廓眼压计(DCT)、Goldmann压平式眼压计(GAT)及非接触式眼压计(NCT)测量接受准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(LASIK)患者眼压值的差异。设计前瞻性临床试验研究。研究对象接受LASIK治疗的近视患者70例(140眼)。方法对上述患者于术前、术后1周,1、6个月用三种不同眼压计分别测量眼压,比较各时间点、各种眼压计之间的差异。同时记录手术前、后中央角膜厚度,取其两者差为角膜切削深度的值。主要指标眼压值(IOP)和角膜切削深度。结果术后1周,1、6个月DCT测量值(16.74±1.96mmHg、16.67±1.90mmHg、16.42±2.12mmHg)与其术前值(17.36±2.32mmHg)比较差异无统计学意义(F=1.346,P=0.06)。术后GAT和NCT测量值均呈下降趋势,与术前测量值比较差异有统计学意义(GAT:F=101.217,P=0.000;NCT:F=171.466,P=0.000),并且下降值与角膜切削深度成正相关关系(GAT:r=0.86,P=0.000;NCT:r=0.87,P=0.000),但术后三个时间段测量值比较差异无统计学意义(GAT术后三个时间点q值为0.216、0.677、0.461,P值分别为0.461、0.097、0.117;NCT术后三个时间点q值为0.215、0.585、0.370,P值分别为0.436、0.436、0.100)。结论LASIK术后GAT和NCT测量值明显下降,而DCT测量值无显著变化,其测量值较前两者更为可靠。(眼科,2007,16:344-347)     

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     

Comparison of Goldmann applanation and dynamic contour tonometry measurements: effects of corneal morphometry

ObjectivesTo compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements made by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT).MethodsIOPs were measured by GAT and DCT in 63 eyes of 63 healthy subjects. A comparison was made by intraclass correlation coefficient. Passing-Bablok plot was constructed to establish the existence of systematic and/or proportional biases. Multivariate regression analysis was used to examine whether the measurements of both instruments were affected by the power of the steepest and flattest corneal axes, their orientation, age or central corneal thickness (CCT).ResultsThe intra-class correlations (ICCs) were 0.57 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.29-0.74). Mean differences were 1.68 (DCT minus GAT) (95% CI: 0.92-2.44). Passing-Bablok analysis (X=DCT, Y=GAT) revealed a systematic bias (A=-14.35, 95% CI: -24.51-[-9.14]) and a proportional bias (B=1.74, 95% CI: 1.43-2.26). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that the DCT was independent of the corneal characteristics analysed while GAT was biased by CCT (B=0.042, 95% CI: 0.002-0.082).ConclusionsWhile GAT was biased by corneal CCT; DCT readings were independent of corneal morphometry.     

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.     

Comparison of Goldmann applanation and dynamic contour tonometry in a population of Mexican open-angle glaucoma patients

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with Goldmann applanation (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in a Mexican population. 40 glaucoma patients were included in this cross-sectional observational cohort study. IOP measurements were performed in the following order: DCT, ultrasonic pachymetry and GAT, with a 5-minute difference between each measurement, between 8 am and 2 pm. Only DCT measurements of good quality (Q ≤ 3) were accepted. GAT measurements were made three times with the same Goldmann tonometer, previously checked for calibration errors, and the mean was used for statistical purposes. The IOP (mean [standard deviation], 95 % confidence interval [CI]) measured with the Goldmann tonometer (13.2 [2.4], 12.4–14.0 mmHg) was significantly lower than that obtained with the DCT (18.4 [3.3], 17.0–19.2 mmHg), p < 0.0001. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between CCT and IOP measured with GAT and DCT were (r = 0.24, 95 % CI = 0.07–0.52, p = 0.133) and (r = 0.13, 95 % CI = –0.19 to 0.43, p = 0.412), respectively. The concordance correlation coefficient between GAT and DCT was r _c = 0.3, 95 % CI = 0.17–0.41). DCT seems to overestimate the IOP as compared to GAT. Additionally, although there was a good correlation between the IOP measurements assessed with either GAT or DCT, the agreement was poor.     

Comparison of Proview phosphene tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry

BACKGROUND: To compare intraocular pressures obtained using a handheld pressure phosphene tonometer (PPT) (Proview, Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tampa, Fla.) with Goldmann applanation tonometry. METHODS: Comparative case series of 30 randomly selected patients. RESULTS: The readings obtained with the pressure phosphene tonometer display a higher mean and a larger standard deviation than those obtained with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Differences between PPT and GAT readings tended to decrease as a function of increased Goldmann levels. The relation of Proview and Goldmann readings (r = 0.32) and the scatterplot were not consistent with the hypothesis that the 2 methods are equivalent. INTERPRETATION: Our results indicate that the pressure phosphene-type handheld tonometry method, which does not appear to provide an accurate and consistent measure of intraocular pressure, is substantially less reliable than the Goldmann method.     

The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry

AIMS: To establish the effects of central corneal thickness (CCT) on intraocular pressure (IOP) measured with a prototype Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), to evaluate the effect of CCT and age on the agreement between IOP measured with the Pascal DCT and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), and to compare the interobserver and intraobserver variation of the DCT with the GAT. METHODS: GAT and DCT IOP measurements were made on 130 eyes of 130 patients and agreement was assessed by means of Bland-Altman plots. The effect of CCT and age on GAT/DCT IOP differences was assessed by linear regression analysis. Interobserver and intraobserver variations for GAT and DCT were assessed in 100 eyes of 100 patients. RESULTS: The mean difference (95% limits of agreement) between GAT and DCT was -0.7 (-6.3 to 4.9) mm Hg. GAT/DCT IOP differences increased with thicker CCT (slope 0.017 mm Hg/microm, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.03, r2 = 0.05, p = 0.01), and with greater age, slope 0.05 mm Hg/year (95% CI 0.012 to 0.084, r2 = 0.05, p = 0.01). The intraobserver variability of GAT and DCT was 1.7 mm Hg and 3.2 mm Hg, respectively. The interobserver variability was (mean difference (95% limits of agreement)) 0.4 (-3.5 to 4.2) mm Hg for GAT and 0.2 (-4.9 to 5.3) mm Hg for DCT. CONCLUSIONS: GAT is significantly more affected than DCT by both CCT and subject age. The effect of age suggests an age related corneal biomechanical change that may induce measurement error additional to that of CCT. The prototype DCT has greater measurement variability than the GAT.