Related Articles

Purpose:

To evaluate if using the Ehlers correction factor on the intraocular pressure (IOP) measured using the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) improves its agreement with the PASCAL dynamic contour tonometer (DCT).

Patients and methods:

A total of 120 eyes of 120 individuals were examined. Participants underwent IOP measurement with both the DCT and the GAT and central corneal thickness measurement. The Ehlers correction factor was applied on the GAT IOP measurements to calculate Ehlers-corrected GAT IOP. The agreement between the DCT and GAT, and DCT and Ehlers-corrected GAT IOP was analyzed. The analyses were repeated by stratifying the data by race.

Results:

The mean IOP of the GAT, DCT, and the Ehlers-corrected GAT was 15.30, 16.78, and 14.68 mmHg, respectively. The agreement as assessed by Bland–Altman plot for the GAT with the DCT and DCT and Ehlers-corrected GAT IOP was +4.1 to −6.9 and +4.15 to −8.25 mmHg, respectively. The results were similar even when stratifying the data by race.

Conclusion:

Using Ehlers correction factor to account for the effect of corneal parameters on the IOP measured by the GAT worsens the agreement with the DCT. This effect remains even when stratifying the data by race.

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/μm, 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.

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.

Purpose

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured by both Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in both normal and glaucomatous eyes, and to determine the relationship between these parameters and central corneal thickness (CCT).

Patients and Methods

Forty-seven subjects with primary open-angle glaucoma and 38 normal subjects attended a 12-hour session during which IOP was assessed at 7 time points, every 2 hours, by both GAT and DCT. CCT was also assessed at the same visit. Mean IOP was calculated for each eye of each subject by each method from the 7 diurnal IOP measurements obtained.

Results

Mean IOP was higher when measured by DCT than by GAT in both normal (by 1.1 mm Hg, P<0.0001) and glaucomatous (by 1.6 mm Hg, P<0.0001) eyes. IOP measurements by GAT and DCT were moderately correlated in both normal (r2=0.354, P<0.0001) and glaucomatous (r2=0.552, P<0.0001) eyes. In normal eyes, there was a weak positive correlation between GAT IOP and CCT (r2=0.088, slope=0.022 mm Hg/µm, P=0.009) and no correlation between DCT IOP and CCT (r2=0.007, slope=0.005 mm Hg/µm, P=0.468). In glaucomatous eyes, there was no correlation between GAT IOP and CCT (r2=0.006, slope=0.007 mm Hg/µm, P=0.473) and a weak inverse correlation between DCT IOP and CCT (r2=0.075, slope= −0.021 mm Hg/µm, P=0.008).

Conclusions

Both GAT and DCT are affected by CCT, albeit in different ways. Normal and glaucomatous eyes exhibit different relationships between CCT and IOP measured by either GAT or DCT. The relationships between CCT and transcorneal IOP measurements are complex and incompletely characterized, which limits the clinical interpretation of GAT and DCT measurements of IOP in both normal and glaucomatous eyes.

Purpose

To compare the intraocular pressures (IOPs) measured by dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), and to investigate the association of IOPs on eyes of varying central corneal thickness (CCT).

Methods

In this prospective study, 451 eyes of 233 subjects were enrolled. IOPs were measured by GAT and DCT. CCT was measured three times and the average was calculated. Each eye was classified into one of three groups according to CCT: low CCT (group A, CCT<520 µm, n=146); normal CCT (group B, 520 µm ≤ CT ≤ 550 µm, n=163); and high CCT (group C, CCT>550 µm, n=142). In each group, we investigated the association of CCT with IOP measurement by GAT and DCT.

Results

The IOPs measured by GAT and DCT were significantly associated for all eyes (R=0.853, p<0.001, Pearson correlation). CCT was related with both IOP measurement by GAT and DCT with statistical significance (mixed effect model, p<0.001). However, subgroup analysis showed that CCT affected IOP measured by GAT for groups B and C, whereas it affected IOP measured by DCT only for group C.

Conclusions

IOP measured by DCT was not affected by CCT in eyes with low to normal CCT, whereas this measurement was affected in eyes of high CCT range. CCT may have less effect on IOP measurements using DCT than those obtained by GAT, within a specified range of CCT.

Purpose

To evaluate the influence of silicone hydrogel contact lenses on the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), non-contact tonometry (NCT), and Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT).

Methods

We included in the study 40 eyes of 40 patients who did not have any ocular or systemic diseases or contraindications to contact lens use. We measured and recorded the IOP values of each patient using NCT without and with contact lenses (groups 1 and 2, respectively), using DCT without and with contact lenses (groups 3 and 4, respectively), and using GAT without contact lenses (group 5).

Results

The mean IOP value of group 1 was 14.55±2.95 mm Hg and 13.92±2.58 mm Hg in group 2. We detected no statistically significant difference between group 1 and group 2 (P=0.053). The mean IOP values for group 3 and group 4 were 16.26±2.33 mm Hg and 15.19±2.40 mm Hg, respectively. We detected a statistically significant difference between groups 3 and 4 (P=0.005). Group 5's mean IOP value was 12.97±2.65 mm Hg. IOP values measured with DCT were statistically significantly higher compared with IOP values measured with NCT and GAT (P<0.0001 and P<0.0001, respectively). Additionally, IOP values measured with NCT were statistically significantly higher compared with IOP values measured with GAT (P<0.0001).

Conclusion

According to the results of our study, silicone hydrogel soft contact lens use does not significantly affect IOP values measured with NCT, but it affects IOP values measured with DCT.

AIM

To investigate the accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) as measured by a Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA), as well as the relationship between central corneal thickness (CCT) and IOP as measured by ORA, Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT).

METHODS

A total of 158 healthy individuals (296 eyes) were chosen randomly for measurement of IOP. After CCT was measured using A-ultrasound (A-US), IOP was measured by ORA, GAT, and DCT devices in a randomized order. The IOP values acquired using each of the three tonometries were compared, and the relationship between CCT and IOP values were analyzed separately. Two IOP values, Goldmann-correlated IOP value (IOPg) and corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc), were got using ORA. Three groups were defined according to CCT: 1) thin cornea (CCT<520µm); 2) normal-thickness cornea (CCT: 520–580µm); and 3) thick cornea (CCT>580µm) groups.

RESULTS

In normal subjects, IOP measurements were 14.95±2.99mmHg with ORA (IOPg), 15.21±2.77mmHg with ORA (IOPcc), 15.22±2.77mmHg with GAT, and 15.49±2.56mmHg with DCT. Mean differences were 0.01±2.29mmHg between IOPcc and GAT (P>0.05) and 0.28±2.20mmHg between IOPcc and DCT (P>0.05). There was a greater correlation between IOPcc and DCT (r=0.946, P=0.000) than that between IOPcc and GAT (r=0.845, P=0.000). DCT had a significant correlation with GAT (r=0.854, P=0.000). GAT was moderately correlated with CCT (r=0.296, P<0.001), while IOPcc showed a weak but significant correlation with CCT (r=−0.155, P=0.007). There was a strong negative correlation between CCT and the difference between IOPcc and GAT(r=-0.803, P=0.000), with every 10µm increase in CCT resulting in an increase in this difference of 0.35mmHg. The thick cornea group (CCT>580µm) showed the least significant correlation between IOPcc and GAT (r=0.859, P=0.000); while the thin cornea group (CCT<520µm) had the most significant correlation between IOPcc and GAT (r=0.926, P=0.000). The correlated differences between IOPcc and DCT were not significant in any of the three groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Measurement of IOP by ORA has high repeatability and is largely consistent with GAT measurements. Moreover, the ORA measurements are affected only to a small extent by CCT, and are likely to be much closer to the real IOP value than GAT.

The aim of this study was to compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) profile during the modified diurnal tension curve (mDTC) using Goldman applanation tonometry (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in treated glaucomatous eyes. Eligible subjects were submitted to the mDTC using GAT and DCT in this sequence. IOP measurements were performed at 8 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., and 4 p.m.. Central corneal thickness was measured using ultrasound pachymetry in the morning. Statistical analysis was performed using paired Student’s t test and Bland–Altman plot. The mean difference between DCT and GAT measurements was 0.9 mmHg. The mean ± SD IOP measurements during the mDTC were 19.68 ± 4.68, 17.63 ± 4.44, 17.25 ± 5.41, and 17.32 ± 4.25 mmHg using GAT and 19.97 ± 4.75, 18.79 ± 4.61, 19.53 ± 5.30, and 19.43 ± 5.45 mmHg using DCT. IOP measurements were higher in the morning (8 a.m.) and decreased throughout the day using both tonometers. The difference between IOP measurements using GAT and DCT was smaller in the morning and increased throughout the day. The IOP variability using GAT was higher than using DCT. Corneal biomechanical properties might help explain our findings.

Objective:

To compare measurements obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), and to study their relationship to corneal thickness and biomechanical properties in nonglaucomatous eyes.

Methods:

This is a prospective and randomized study of 200 eyes from 200 non-glaucomatous subjects who underwent intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements by GAT and DCT. The two methods were compared and assessed for agreement by means of the Bland–Altman plot. Central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal hysteresis (CH) were obtained by ultrasound pachymeter and Ocular Response Analyzer, respectively. The effect of CH and CCT was correlated with the DCT/GAT IOP differences.

Results:

Mean age was 57.4 ± 14.7 years (range 24–82 years). Mean IOP measurements obtained were 16.7 ± 3.2 mmHg by GAT and 19.4 ± 3.3 mmHg by DCT. DCT showed a statistically significant higher mean IOP (2.7 ± 1.9 mmHg, P < 0.001) compared with GAT. Mean CCT and CH were 546.5 ± 40 μm and 10.85 ± 2.0 mmHg, respectively. The differences in IOP (DCT – GAT) were significantly correlated with CCT and CH (Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = −0.517 and −0.355, P < 0.0001, respectively). The difference between the two correlation coefficients was statistically significant (P < 0.05, Z-statistic). According to the Bland–Altman plot, the results of the two methods were clinically different.

Conclusion:

Significantly higher IOP readings were obtained by DCT than by GAT in nonglaucomatous subjects. The IOP differences between the two methods were associated with CCT and CH, suggesting that DCT was less dependent on corneal parameters. Each method provides clinically different IOP values, indicating that DCT and GAT should not be used interchangeably.

Background. To evaluate differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry (GAT) and Dynamic Controur Tonometry (DCT) following trabeculectomy. Methods. Thirty eight glaucomatous eyes with a history of trabeculectomy (Trabeculectomy group, TG), 20 eyes without a history of trabeculectomy but with a history of latanoprost use (Latanoprost group, LG), and 19 nonglaucomatous eyes (Control group, CG) were included. GAT-IOP, DCT-IOP, the difference between them (dIOP), the central corneal thickness (CCT), the axial length (AL), and the depth of the anterior chamber (ACD) were measured. Results. dIOP was significantly higher in TG (5.19 mmHg) than in LG (4.01 mmHg) and CG (1.98 mmHg). Correlations between AL and dIOP were statistically significant in both TG and LG but not in CG whereas correlations between dIOP and other clinical parameters examined were statistically not significant in all groups. Conclusions. The significantly higher dIOP in TG implies that the bio-mechanical properties of the ocular walls are altered following trabeculectomy.

Oculab Tono-Pen tonometry was compared with Goldmann applanation tonometry in 82 eyes of 82 patients with normal corneas and in 54 eyes of 54 patients who had undergone penetrating keratoplasty and whose corneas did not preclude the use of Goldmann tonometer. We found that the intraocular pressure (IOP) in 48% of the eyes with normal corneas and in 57% after keratoplasty has different measurements with Goldmann and Tono-Pen pressures of 3 mm Hg or more. Despite the correlation between the Goldmann tonometer and the Tono-Pen in the group of eyes with normal corneas (r = 0.83) as well as in the group of eyes after keratoplasty (r = 0.79) the Tono-Pen tended to significantly overestimate the Goldmann tonometer reading (p < 0.0001). The mean difference between the two instruments was highest across the lower IOP range (< 9 mm Hg) in the group of eyes after keratoplasty. Because the mean absolute values of the paired differences between Goldmann and Tono-Pen measurements varied significantly across all IOP intervals it was not possible to establish a correction factor which could be used when comparing the two measurements. Based on this study the Tono-Pen consistently overestimated the actual IOP in an unpredictable manner. Where possible Goldmann measurements of the IOP are still to be preferred.

Aim: To compare the inter-method agreement in intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements made with four different tonometric methods.

Methods: IOP was measured with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Tono-Pen XL, ocular blood flow tonograph (OBF), and Canon TX-10 non-contact tonometer (NCT) in a randomised order in one eye of each of 105 patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Three measurements were made with each method, and by each of two independent GAT observers. GAT interobserver and tonometer inter-method agreement was assessed by the Bland-Altman method. The outcome measures were 95% limits of agreement for IOP measurements between GAT observers and between tonometric methods, and 95% confidence intervals for intra-session repeated measurements.

Results: The mean differences (bias) in IOP measurements were 0.4 mm Hg between GAT observers, and 0.6 mm Hg, 0.1 mm Hg, and 0.7 mm Hg between GAT and Tono-Pen, OBF, and NCT, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement were smallest (bias ±2.6 mm Hg) between GAT observers, and larger for agreement between the GAT and the Tono-Pen, OBF, and NCT (bias ±6.7, ±5.5, and ±4.8 mm Hg, respectively). The OBF and NCT significantly underestimated GAT measurements at lower IOP and overestimated these at higher IOP. The repeatability coefficients for intra-session repeated measurement for each method were ±2.2 mm Hg and ±2.5 mm Hg for the GAT, ±4.3 mm Hg for the Tono-Pen, ±3.7 mm Hg for the OBF, and ±3.2 mm Hg for the NCT.

Conclusions: There was good interobserver agreement with the GAT and moderate agreement between the NCT and GAT. The differences between the GAT and OBF and between the GAT and Tono-Pen probably preclude the OBF and Tono-Pen from routine clinical use as objective methods to measure IOP in normal adult eyes.

Purpose

Given the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System's recent introduction of single-use Tonosafe disposable tonometer prisms as an alternative to Goldmann applanation tonometers (GATs), this study had two aims: to conduct a large-scale quality assurance trial to assess the reliability of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements of the Tonosafe disposable tonometer compared with GAT, particularly at extremes of pressure; to evaluate the suitability of Tonosafe disposable tonometer prisms as an acceptable substitute for GATs and for clinic-wide implementation in an academic tertiary referral setting.

Methods

Ophthalmology resident physicians measured the IOPs of patients in general and specialty eye clinics with the Tonosafe disposable tonometer and GAT. Tonosafe test–retest reliability data were also collected. A retrospective review of patient charts and data analysis were performed to determine the reliability of measurements.

Results

The IOPs of 652 eyes (326 patients) were measured with both GAT and Tonosafe, with a range of 3–34 mm Hg. Linear regression analysis showed R=0.93, slope=0.91, both of which supported the proposed hypothesis, and the y-intercept=−1.05 was significantly different from the hypothesized value. The Tonosafe test–retest repeatability (40 eyes of 40 patients), r=0.977, was very high, which was further supported by linear regression slope=0.993, y-intercept=0.118, and a Tonosafe repeatability coefficient of 2.06, similar to GAT repeatability.

Conclusions

The IOP measurements by Tonosafe disposable prisms correlated closely with Goldmann measurements, with similar repeated measurement variability to GAT. This suggests that the Tonosafe is an acceptable substitute for GAT to measure IOP in ophthalmology clinic settings.

Background/aim: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements taken by the Goldmann applanation tonometer, the Tono-Pen and the ocular blood flow pneumotonometer in eyes with varying central corneal thickness (CCT) due to penetrating keratoplasty (PK), keratoconus (KC), and Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy (FED).

Methods: IOP was measured with the Goldmann applanation tonometer, Tono-Pen XL, and OBF pneumotonometer in 127 eyes with the following corneal abnormalities. There were 56 eyes that had undergone PK, 37 eyes with KC, and 34 eyes with FED. CCT was measured using an ultrasound pachymeter after IOP determinations had been made.

Results: Mean IOP measurements in all three patient groups were significantly higher when measured by OBF pneumotonometer. Linear regression analysis showed that patients with FED had a significant increase in IOP with increasing CCT of 0.18 mm Hg/10 μm using the Goldmann tonometer, 0.15 mm Hg/10 μm with the Tono-Pen, and 0.26 mm Hg/10 μm with the OBF pneumotonometer. In patients with KC and after PK, linear regression analysis did not show a significant effect of CCT on IOP. A multivariate linear regression model controlling for age, sex, graft size, and patient group, showed that the effect of CCT on IOP for Tono-Pen (0.13 mm Hg/10 μm CCT) and Goldmann (0.14 mm Hg/10 μm CCT) were significantly lower than for the OBF pneumotonometer (0.26 mm Hg/10 μm CCT).

Conclusions: This study found that mean IOP measurements using the OBF pneumotonometer were significantly higher than those made using the Goldmann applanation tonometer or Tono-Pen in eyes with a variety of cornel pathologies. The OBF pneumotonometer was found to be most affected by variation in CCT. For all three instruments, the relation between IOP and CCT depended on the corneal pathology and was greatest for FED.

Background

The new Ocular Dynamic Contour Tonometer (DCT), investigational device supplied by SMT (Swiss Microtechnology AG, Switzerland) allows simultaneous recording of intraocular pressure (IOP) and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA). It was the aim of this study to compare the IOP results of this new device with Goldmann tonometry. Furthermore, IOP and OPA measured with the new slitlamp-mounted DCT were compared to the IOP and OPA measured with the hand-held SmartLens®, a gonioscopic contact lens tonometer (ODC Ophthalmic Development Company AG, Switzerland).

Methods

Nineteen healthy subjects were included in this study. IOP was determined by three consecutive measurements with each of the DCT, SmartLens®, and Goldmann tonometer. Furthermore, OPA was measured three times consecutively by DCT and SmartLens®.

Results

No difference (P = 0.09) was found between the IOP values by means of DCT (mean: 16.6 mm Hg, median: 15.33 mm Hg, SD: +/- 4.04 mm Hg) and Goldmann tonometry (mean: 16.17 mm Hg, median: 15.33 mm Hg, SD: +/- 4.03 mm Hg). The IOP values of SmartLens® (mean: 20.25 mm Hg, median: 19.00 mm Hg, SD: +/- 4.96 mm Hg) were significantly higher (P = 0.0008) both from Goldmann tonometry and DCT. The OPA values of the DCT (mean: 3.08 mm Hg, SD: +/- 0.92 mm Hg) were significantly lower (P = 0.0003) than those obtained by SmartLens® (mean: 3.92 mm Hg, SD: +/- 0.83 mm Hg).

Conclusions

DCT was equivalent to Goldmann applanation tonometry in measurement of IOP in a small group of normal subjects. In contrast, SmartLens® (contact lens tonometry) gave IOP readings that were significantly higher compared with Goldmann applanation tonometer readings. Both devices, DCT and SmartLens® provide the measurement of OPA which could be helpful e.g. for the management of glaucoma.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the repeatability and inter-operator reproducibility of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) and Goldmann applanation tonometer(GAT) in a single population of normal subjects.

METHODS

The study included fifty-two eyes from 26 normal subjects. One operator measured the intraocular pressure (IOP) with each tonometer three times while two additional operators each measured the IOP with each tonometer once. Repeatability and reproducibility were assessed by the coefficient of Variation (CV) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Agreement among tonometers was also assessed using Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

The mean age of included subjects was 31.5 ±8.8 years and 15 (58%) were female. In general, both intra-operator repeatability and inter-operator reproducibility were significantly higher for DCT compared to the other tonometers. Intra-operator DCT (CV = 3.7, ICC = 0.89), GAT (CV = 9.7, ICC = 0.79), IOPg (CV = 7.0, ICC = 0.79) and IOPcc (CV = 9.8, ICC = 0.57). Inter-operator DCT (CV=6.1, ICC = 0.73), GAT (CV=9.0, ICC=0.82) and IOPg (CV=10.8, ICC = 0.63), IOPcc (CV=11.7, ICC = 0.49)

CONCLUSION

Overall, DCT was significantly more repeatable and reproducible than GAT, IOPg and IOPcc. The better reproducibility of the DCT may result in more precise measurements for monitoring intraocular pressure changes over time compared to GAT and ORA.

Purpose:

Noncontact tonometers are useful when regulations preclude use of contact tonometers by medical students and other nonophthalmologists. Our study compared the measurements by the portable, noncontact tonometer (PT100) with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT).

Methods:

This was a prospective study of 98 eyes from 98 patients. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured by GAT and the PT100 (Reichert, Buffalo, NY).

Results:

Mean IOP measurements showed no significant differences in measurements performed by the two tonometers (P = 0.64). Measurements by the two tonometers were in agreement by ≤3 mmHg in 92.8% of eyes. Linear regression analysis of PT100 vs GAT measurements revealed a slope of 0.98 with r2 = 0.58. Bland–Altman analysis showed a mean difference of measurements by GAT and PT100 of −0.3 mmHg with two standard deviation = 7.1 mmHg.

Conclusion:

The portable noncontact PT100 tonometer provides IOP measurements comparable to GAT within the normal range of IOP.

AIM

To investigate the effects of body mass index (BMI) on intraocular pressure (IOP) and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA).

METHODS

Totally 140 healthy individuals without any systemic diseases were included in the study. BMI (kg/m2) was calculated for every individual. IOP and OPA were measured with Pascal Dynamic contour tonometer (DCT). Blood pressure was also measured along with the DCT. The patients were divided into three groups according to BMI as: Group1, BMI<25; Group2, 25≤BMI<30; Group3, BMI≥30. Mean values of IOP, OPA, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were used in statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In Group1, the means of IOP, OPA, were 16.8±2.3mmHg, 2.7±0.7mmHg respectively; and SBP, DBP were 120.0±6.1mmHg, and 77.4±5.6mmHg respectively. In group2, the mean IOP, OPA, SBP, and DBP were found to be 16.6±2.1mmHg, 2.4±0.7mmHg, 121.7±5.3mmHg, and 79.5±4.9mmHg respectively. In group3, the mean IOP, OPA, SBP, and DBP were found to be 17.3±1.7mmHg, 2.1±0.7mmHg, 122.4±5.7mmHg, and 79.7±5.2mmHg respectively. There were no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of IOP, SBP and DBP, while OPA values were significantly lower in group3 (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Decreased OPA values in individuals with higher BMI may indicate that subjects with higher BMI have lower choroidal perfusion and lower ocular blood flow.

Purpose

Tonometry, or measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP), is one of the most important examination procedures in ophthalmic clinics, and IOP is an important parameter in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Because there are numerous types of tonometer available, it is important to evaluate the differences in readings between different tonometers. Goldmann applanation tonometers (GATs) and noncontact air-puff tonometers (APTs) are largely available in ophthalmic clinics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of AP tonometer by comparing the measurements of IOP made using this device with those made using a GAT.

Patients and methods

This study involved 196 eyes from 98 study participants, all of whom were patients attending an ophthalmic outpatient clinic. Each patient’s IOP was measured using both Goldmann applanation tonometry and AP tonometry, and the difference in readings between the two methods was calculated.

Results

The mean IOP as measured by GAT was 13.06 ± 4.774 mmHg, while that as measured by AP tonometer was 15.91 ± 6.955 mmHg. The mean difference between the two methods of measurement was 2.72 ± 2.34 mmHg. The readings obtained by AP tonometer were higher than those obtained by GAT in 74% of patients, and this difference was most obvious when the GAT measurement of IOP exceeded 24 mmHg. No statistically significant variation in IOP was noted between the devices when the patients’ age, sex, and laterality (right and left eyes) were considered.

Conclusion

There is a significant difference in the measurement of IOP between GATs and AP tonometers. Goldmann applanation tonometry remains the most suitable and reliable method for measuring IOP. Because measurements of IOP by AP tonometer are usually higher than those obtained by GAT regardless of the patient’s age, sex, or laterality of eyes, AP tonometry is a suitable method for community or mass screenings of IOP.

Aims: To evaluate the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements made with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Tono-Pen XL, ocular blood flow tonograph (OBF), and Canon TX-10 non-contact tonometer (NCT).

Methods: CCT was recorded for either eye (randomly selected) of each of 105 untreated patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma attending the glaucoma research unit at Moorfields Eye Hospital. For each of the selected eyes, IOP was measured with the GAT (two observers), Tono-Pen, OBF, and NCT in a randomised order. The relation of measured IOP and of inter-tonometer differences with CCT and subject age was explored by linear regression analysis.

Results: A significant association between measured IOP and CCT was found with each instrument. The change in measured IOP for a 10 μm increase in CCT was 0.28, 0.31, 0.38, and 0.46 for the GAT, Tono-Pen, OBF, and NCT, respectively (all p⩽0.05). There was a significant association between the NCT/GAT differences and CCT, with a tendency of NCT to overestimate GAT in eyes with thicker corneas. There was a significant association between GAT/Tono-Pen and OBF/Tono-Pen differences and age, with a tendency of GAT and OBF to overestimate the Tono-Pen in eyes of older subjects.

Conclusion: IOP measurement by all four methods is affected by CCT. The NCT is affected by CCT significantly more than the GAT. Subject age has a differential effect on the IOP measurements made by the GAT and OBF compared to the Tono-Pen.

Background

Raised intraocular pressure (IOP) is the only causal risk factor for glaucoma that can be therapeutically manipulated to change the course of the disease process. Though Goldman applanation tonometry (GAT) is the “gold standard” for IOP measurement, readings of IOP with GAT are affected by central corneal thickness (CCT). The aim of this study is to determine the impact of CCT on IOP among Ethiopian glaucoma patients.

Methods

It was a multicenter cross-sectional study and all glaucoma patients visiting their respective eye clinic during the study period were included. A total of 199 randomly selected glaucomatous eyes from 199 patients aged 18 years and above were employed. The CCT was measured by OcuScan™ RxP Ophthalmic Ultrasound and IOP was measured with Goldmann applanation tonometer. Linear regression and bivariate correlation analysis were carried out and level of significance was taken at 5%.

Results

The mean IOP was 19.46(±7.05) mmHg and mean CCT was 508.07(±33.26) μm. The mean IOP for primary open angle glaucoma (POAG), ocular hypertension (OHT), normal tension glaucoma (NTG), pseudoexfoliative glaucoma (PXG) and primary chronic angle closure glaucoma (PCAG) patients was 19.22 mmHg, 21.39 mmHg, 14.33 mmHg, 33.25 mmHg and 14.75 mmHg respectively. The mean CCT values were 502.24 μm (POAG), 524.32 μm (OHT), 500.75 μm (NTG), 579.00 μm (PXG) and 530.25 μm (PCAG). Age of the patient and glaucoma surgery had an influence on corneal thickness. A positive relationship was found between CCT and IOP (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The mean CCT of Ethiopian glaucoma patients is thin in comparison to other ethnic groups and patients with OHT have thicker corneas than POAG patients. Hence determination of CCT for each patient is necessary in the up-to-date glaucoma management.

Background:

The purpose of this study was to assess the repeatability and reproducibility of the PT100 noncontact tonometer and to compare its consistency with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in measuring intraocular pressure (IOP).

Methods:

Triplicate IOP measurements were obtained on two separate occasions using the PT100 and GAT from randomly selected eyes in 66 healthy volunteers aged 22 ± 1 years. The repeatability and reproducibility of each techniques was assessed. Agreement between the techniques was statistically quantified using intrasession repeatability for each technique as the basis for comparison.

Results:

Both techniques returned equal IOP values in the first measurement session (15 ± 3 mmHg). The second session showed a mean difference in average IOP (1 ± 0.71). The 95% limits of agreement between the techniques were −5.2 to 5.5 mmHg and −4.0 to 4.7 mmHg (sessions 1 and 2, respectively). These mean differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05, paired t-test), with the PT100 underestimating IOP measurement by 1.00 mmHg. The mean intrasession IOP for GAT sessions 1 and 2 was 0 ± 0.90 mmHg and 0.04 ± 1.06 mmHg, respectively, and the corresponding mean IOP measurement difference for the PT100 was −0.06 ± 0.96 and −0.39 ± 0.94 mmHg (sessions 1 and 2, respectively; P > 0.05, paired t-test). Repeatability coefficients for the GAT IOP measurements were 1.8 mmHg and 2.1 mmHg for sessions 1 and 2, while the PT100 repeatability coefficient was 1.9 mmHg and 1.8 mmHg for sessions 1 and 2, respectively. The intrasession repeatability coefficient of both techniques for test–retest differences were within ±5 mmHg.

Conclusion:

The PT100 noncontact tonometer produced greater repeatability than the GAT in assessment of IOP, whereas GAT resulted in more reproducible results. Both techniques showed a close level of agreement on comparison, with the PT100 underestimating IOP measurement by 1.0 mmHg only, although this was not clinically or statistically significant. Of importance is that the IOP measurements using these techniques could be interchangeable in the IOP range studied here.

Glaucoma after corneal transplantation is a leading cause of ocular morbidity after penetrating keratoplasty. The incidence reported is highly variable and a number of etiologic factors have been identified. A number of treatment options are available; surgical intervention for IOP control is associated with a high incidence of graft failure. IOP elevation is less frequently seen following deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Descemet's striping-automated endothelial keratoplasty is also associated with postprocedure intraocular pressure elevation and secondary glaucoma and presents unique surgical challenges in patients with preexisting glaucoma surgeries. Glaucoma exists in up to three-quarters of patients who undergo keratoprosthesis surgery and the management if often challenging. The aim of this paper is to highlight the incidence, etiology, and management of glaucoma following different corneal transplant procedures. It also focuses on the challenges in the diagnosis of glaucoma and intraocular pressure monitoring in this group of patients.

A 21-year-old myope presented with decreased vision and corneal edema following vitreoretinal surgery for retinal detachment. While intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement with Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) was low, the digital tonometry indicated raised pressures. An interface fluid syndrome (IFS) was suspected and confirmed by clinical exam and optical coherence tomography. A tonopen used to measure IOP through the peripheral cornea revealed elevated IOP which was the cause of the interface fluid. Treatment with IOP-lowering agents resulted in complete resolution of the interface fluid. This case is being reported to highlight the fact that IFS should be suspected when there is LASIK flap edema and IOP readings using GAT are low and that GAT is not an optimal method to measure IOP in this condition. Alternative methods like tonopen or Schiotz tonometry can be used.

Aim:

The aim was to evaluate the outcome of Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) in post-penetrating-keratoplasty glaucoma (PKPG).

Materials and Methods:

In this prospective study, 20 eyes of 20 adult patients with post-PKPG with intraocular pressure (IOP) >21 mmHg, on two or more antiglaucoma medications, underwent AG (model FP7) implantation and were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Absolute success was defined as 5

Results:

The mean IOP decreased from 42.95 ± 10.24 to 17.69 ± 3.64 mmHg (P <0.001) and the use of medications dropped from 2.92 to 0.39 (P <0.001) after AGV implantation. The absolute success was achieved in 11 eyes and qualified success in 9. There was no significant change in best corrected visual acuity, graft clarity, or graft thickness. Six device-related complications occurred after AGV implantations which were successfully managed with medical or minor surgical therapy.

Conclusions:

Postkeratoplasty refractory glaucoma managed by AGV implantation revealed a satisfactory outcome up to 6 months of follow-up.