medigraphic.com
Anales de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oftalmología y Archivos de la Asociación Para Evitar la Ceguera en México

2018, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Oftalmol 2018; 92 (6)

Comparison between rebound tonometer and Tono-Pen® in relation to Goldmann applanation tonometry and the influence of central corneal thickness on these three methods

Magela-Vieira G, Carvalho-Sousa HC, Pinto-Silva LN

Language: Spanish
References: 26
Page: 286-291
PDF size: 203.08 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: to compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements from two different instruments, the rebound tonometer ( Icare®) and the Tono-Pen® XL (TP), with that from Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and to determine the influence of central corneal thickness on these three instruments. Methods: 274 eyes from 137 healthy volunteers were evaluated in this cross-sectional study. All IOP measurements were made by the same examiner who was blinded to the observed result. Icare® tonometry was performed first, followed by TP, GAT, and pachymetry in a random order. Results: a good correlation was observed between IOP measurements obtained with Icare® and GAT (r = 0.79, p = 0.000) and between TP and GAT (r = 0.69, p = 0.000). Icare® and TP measurements were consistently higher than GAT measurements. A Bland–Altman plot indicated that the 95% limits of agreement between Icare® and GAT were 0.98 ± 3.12 (mean ± SD; range, −5.14 to 7.11) mmHg, and those between TP and GAT were 1.88 ± 3.20 (range, −4.38 to 8.15) mmHg. In the group of patients with thinner corneas, Icare® overestimated IOP by 0.5mmHg compared with IOP obtained using GAT and by 1.8mmHg compared with IOP obtained using TP. In the group of patients with thicker corneas, Icare® overestimated IOP by 1.4mmHg compared IOP obtained using GAT and by 1.5mmHg compared with IOP obtained using TP. Conclusion: IOP measurements obtained with Icare® and TP showed a good correlation with that of GAT. Both tonometers tend to overestimate IOP compared to GAT. In patients with thinner corneas, Icare® perfrmed better than TP.


REFERENCES

  1. Goldmann H, Schmidt T. [Applanation tonometry]. Ophthalmologica. 1957;134(4)221-42.

  2. Kontiola AI. A new induction-based impact method for measuring intraocular pressure. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000;78(2)142-5.

  3. Kontiola AI, Goldblum D, Mittag T, Danias J. The induction/impact tonometer a new instrument to measure intraocular pressure in the rat. Exp Eye Res. 2001;73(6)781-5.

  4. Davies LN, Bartlett H, Mallen EA, Wolffsohn JS. Clinical evaluation of rebound tonometer. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84(2)206-9.

  5. Fernandes P, Diaz-Rey JA, Queiros A, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Jorge J. Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005;25(5)436-40.

  6. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Castillo A, Garcia-Sanchez J. Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(12)4578-80.

  7. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Parisi L. Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2006;15(3)213-7.

  8. Minckler DS, Baerveldt G, Heuer DK, Quillen-Thomas B, Walonker AF, Weiner J. Clinical evaluation of the Oculab Tono-Pen. Am J Ophthalmol. 1987;104(2)168-73.

  9. Hessemer V, Rossler R, Jacobi KW. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements with the Oculab Tono-Pen vs manometry in humans shortly after death. Am J Ophthalmol. 1988;105(6)678-82.

  10. Viestenz A, Lausen B, Junemann AM, Mardin CY. [Comparison of precision of the TonoPenXL with the Goldmann and Draeger applanation tonometer in a sitting and recumbent position of the patients -- a clinical study on 251 eyes]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2002;219(11)785-90.

  11. Chatterjee A, Shah S, Bessant DA, Naroo SA, Doyle SJ. Reduction in intraocular pressure after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy. Correlation with pretreatment myopia. Ophthalmology. 1997;104(3)355-9.

  12. Dohadwala AA, Munger R, Damji KF. Positive correlation between Tono- Pen intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(10)1849-54.

  13. van der Jagt LH, Jansonius NM. Three portable tonometers, the TGDc- 01, the ICARE and the Tonopen XL, compared with each other and with Goldmann applanation tonometry*. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005; 25(5)429-35.

  14. Dekking HM, Coster HD. Dynamic tonometry. Ophthalmologica. 1967; 154(1)59-74.

  15. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Vico E, Fernandez-Vidal A, Benitez del Castillo JM, Wasfi M, et al. Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and goldmann tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(12)2156-62.

  16. Nakamura M, Darhad U, Tatsumi Y, Fujioka M, Kusuhara A, Maeda H, et al. Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of applanation tonometers. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142(2)332-4.

  17. García-Resúa C, González-Meijome JM, Gilino J, Yebra-Pimentel E. Accuracy of the new ICare rebound tonometer vs. other portable tonometers in healthy eyes. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83(2)102-7.

  18. Munkwitz S, Elkarmouty A, Hoffmann EM, Pfeiffer N, Thieme H. Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer over a wide PIO range. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;246(6)875-9.

  19. Iester M, Mermoud A, Achache F, Roy S. New Tonopen XL comparison with the Goldmann tonometer. Eye (Lond). 2001;15(Pt 1)52-8.

  20. Detry-Morel M, Jamart J, Detry MB, Pourjavan S, Charlier L, Dethinne B, et al. [Clinical evaluation of the dynamic rebound tonometer Icare]. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2006;29(10)1119-27.

  21. Lam AK, Wu R, Wang Z, Woo V, Chan E, Tam K, et al. Effect of laser in situ keratomileusis on rebound tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(4)631-6.

  22. Queiros A, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Fernandes P, Jorge J, Montes-Mico R, Almeida JB, et al. Technical note a comparison of central and peripheral intraocular pressure using rebound tonometry. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007;27(5)506-11.

  23. Jorge JM, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Queiros A, Fernandes P, Parafita MA. Correlations between corneal biomechanical properties measured with the ocular response analyzer and ICare rebound tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2008;17(6)442-8.

  24. Chui WS, Lam A, Chen D, Chiu R. The influence of corneal properties on rebound tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(1)80-4.

  25. Pakrou N, Gray T, Mills R, Landers J, Craig J. Clinical comparison of the Icare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2008;17(1)43-7.

  26. Hsiao YC, Dzau JR, Flemmons MS, Asrani S, Jones S, Freedman SF. Home assessment of diurnal intraocular pressure in healthy children using the Icare rebound tonometer. J aapos. 2012;16(1)58-60.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com