To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) readings taken by ICare, Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and ocular response analyzer (ORA) with those taken by Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). We sought to evaluate the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements and to compare patients' preferences for the four tonometers.
Methods
In this prospective study, 93 eyes from 93 patients were examined. Patients were randomly divided into 4 groups to vary the order in which the tonometers were applied. CCT was measured with an ultrasound pachymeter.
Results
The average CCT was 558±47.4 μm. The mean ± standard deviation IOP for GAT, ICare, DCT, and ORA (Goldmann-correlated IOP) (ORAgc) were 15.1±4.8, 15.7±5.7, 18.3±5.1, and 18.3±6.6 mmHg, respectively. There was no significant difference between the mean IOP obtained with GAT and ICare (p=0.14). There was also no difference in IOP levels between the mean IOP obtained with DCT and ORA (p=0.26). There was no correlation between IOP measurements and CCT for the four instruments. Bland-Altman graphs showed disagreement between the measurements taken by GAT and the other instruments. There was no significant difference in patients' preference among the 4 instruments (p=0.48).
Conclusions
IOP readings from ICare were consistent with those from GAT, whereas DCT readings correspond well to ORAgc measurements. DCT and ORA readings both overestimated the GAT readings. There was no correlation between the IOP measurements and the CCT for the 4 instruments. There was no significant difference in patients' preference among the 4 instruments. (Eur J Ophthalmol 2009; 19: 783–9)
QuigleyH.A., BromanA.T.. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020.Br J Ophthalmol2006; 90: 262–7.
2.
CaprioliJ., ColemanA.L.. Intraocular pressure fluctuation: a risk factor for visual field progression at low intraocular pressures in the advanced glaucoma intervention study.Ophthalmology2008; 115: 1123–9.
3.
European Glaucoma Society.Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 3rd ed.2008; 61–6.
4.
GoldmannH.. Applanation tonometry. In: Glaucoma. Transactions of the Second Conference.New York: Josiah Macy, Jr Foundation; 1957.
5.
DoughtyM.J., ZamanM.L.. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach.Surv Ophthalmol2000; 44: 367–408.
6.
OrssengoG.J., PyeD.C.. Determination of the true intraocular pressure and modulus of elasticity of the human cornea in vivo.Bull Math Biol1999; 61: 551–72.
7.
GräfM., WassillH., BurkhardD.. Ein neues lageunabhängiges Tonometer (Proton) im Vergleich mit dem Goldmann-applanationstonometer.Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd1995; 206: 255–61.
8.
Van de VeldeT., ZeyenT.. Reliability of the Nidek NT-1000 non contact tonometer.Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol1995; 255: 19–22.
9.
KoçakI., OrgülS., SaruhanA., HaeflingerI., HendricksonP., FlammerJ.. Measurement of intraocular pressure with a modern noncontact tonometer.Ophthalmologica1998; 212: 81–7.
KontiolaA.. A new electromechanical method for measuring intraocular pressure.Doc Ophthalmol1996–1997; 93: 265–76.
12.
KaufmannC., BachmannL.M., ThielM.A.. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2004; 45: 3118–21.
13.
KotechaA., ElsheikhA., RobertsC.R., ZhuH., Garway-HeathD.F.. Corneal thickness and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2006; 47: 5337–47.
14.
RuokonenP.C., SchwenteckT., DraegerJ.. Evaluation of the impedance tonometers TGDC-01 and iCare according to the international ocular tonometer standards ISO 8612.Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol2007; 245: 1259–65.
15.
KontiolaA.I.. A new induction-based impact method for measuring intraocular pressure.Acta Ophthalmol Scand2000; 78: 142–5.
16.
KniestedtC., NeeM., StamperR.L.. Accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry compared with applanation tonometry in human cadaver eyes of different hydration states.Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol2005; 243: 359–66.
17.
KniestedtC., NeeM., StamperR.L.. Dynamic contour tonometry: a comparative study on human cadaver eyes.Arch Ophthalmol2004; 122: 1287–93.
18.
KanngiesserH.E., NeeM., KniestedtD.Stimulation of dynamic contour tonometry compared to in-vitro study revealing minimal influence of corneal radius and astigmatism. The theoretical foundations of dynamic contour tonometry.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2003; 44: E-abstract 2641.
19.
KanngiesserH.E., KniestedtC., RobertY.C.A.. Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer.J Glaucoma2005; 14: 344–50.
20.
Martinez de la CasaJ.M., Garcia-FeijooJ.. Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular measurements.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2006; 47: 4410–4.
21.
PakrouN., GrayT., MillsR., LandersJ., CraigJ., PhilD.. Clinical comparison of the ICare Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry.J Glaucoma2008; 17: 43–7.
22.
AbrahamL.M., EpasingheN.C., SelvaD., CassonR.. Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer by experienced and inexperienced tonometrists.Eye2008; 22: 503–6.
23.
BrusiniP., SalvetatM.L., ZeppieriM., TosoniC., ParisiL.. Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients.J Glaucoma2006; 15: 213–7.
24.
SahinA., BasmakH., NiyazL., YildririmN.. Reproducibility and tolerability of the ICare Rebound Tonometer in school children.J Glaucoma2007; 16: 185–8.
25.
GordonM.O., BeiserJ.A., BrandtJ.D.The ocular hypertension treatment study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma.Arch Ophthalmol2002; 120: 714–20.
26.
PacheM., WilmsmeyerS., LautebachS., FunkJ.. Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study.Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol2005; 243: 763–7.
27.
BromanA.T., CongdonN.G., Bandeen-RocheK., QuigleyH.A.. Influence of corneal structure, corneal responsiveness and other ocular parameters on tonometric measurement of intraocular pressure.J Glaucoma2007; 16: 581–8.
28.
PunjabiO.S., HoH.K., KniestedtC., BostromA.G., StamperR.L., LinS.C.. Intraocular pressure and ocular pulse amplitude comparisons in different types of glaucoma using dynamic contour tonometry.Curr Eye Res2006; 31: 851–62.
29.
KniestedtC., LinS., CloeJ., BostromA., NeeM., StamperR.L.. Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relationship to pachymetry.Arch Ophthalmol2005; 123: 1532–7.
30.
SiganosD.S., PapastergiouG., MoedasC.. Assessment of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer in monitoring intraocular pressure in unoperated eyes and eyes after LASIK.J Cataract Refract Surg2004; 30: 746–51.
31.
SalvetatM.L., ZeppieriM., TosoniC., BrusiniP.. Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the Tonopen, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma.Acta Ophthalmol Scand2007; 85: 272–9.
32.
FrancisB.A., HsiehA., LaiM.Y.Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry.Ophthalmology2007; 114: 20–6.
33.
NakamuraM., DarhadU., TatsumiY.Agreement of Rebound Tonometry in measuring intraocular pressure in three types of applanation tonometers.Am J Ophthalmol2006; 142: 332–4.
34.
López-CaballeroC., ContrerasI., Muñoz-NegreteF.J., RebolledaG., CabrejasL., MarceloP.. Rebound tonometry in a clinical setting. Comparison with Applanation Tonometry.Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol2007; 82: 273–8.
35.
Detry-MorelM., JamartJ., DetryM.B.Clinical evaluation of the dynamic rebound tonometer ICare.J Fr Ophtalmol2006; 29: 1119–27.
36.
Martinez de la CasaJ.M., Garcia-FeijooJ., CastilloA., Garcia-SanchezJ.. Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2005; 46: 4578–80.
37.
ChuiW.S., LamA., ChenD., ChiuR.. The influence of corneal properties on rebound tonometry.Ophthalmology2008; 115: 80–4.
