scholarly journals Comparisons of intraocular pressure measurements: Goldmann applanation tonometry, noncontact tonometry, Tono-Pen tonometry, and dynamic contour tonometry

Eye ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 1582-1588 ◽  
Author(s):  
S-Y Hsu ◽  
M-M Sheu ◽  
A-H Hsu ◽  
K-Y Wu ◽  
J-I Yeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Dynamic Contour Tonometry ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Noncontact Tonometry

scholarly journals Accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry, and Tono-Pen XL in edematous corneas

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 251584142092319
Author(s):  
George A. Kontadakis ◽  
Alexandros Pennos ◽  
Iro Pentari ◽  
George D. Kymionis ◽  
Ioannis G. Pallikaris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Dynamic Contour Tonometry ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Ultrasound Pachymetry ◽  
Porcine Eyes

Purpose: To investigate in vitro the accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry, and Tono-Pen XL in edematous corneas. Methods: Experimental study included 20 freshly enucleated porcine eyes. Epithelium was debrided, and eyes were divided in four groups. Groups were immersed in 35%, 40%, 50%, and 60% glycerin solutions for 3 hours. Subsequently, globes were mounted in a special holder, and their intraocular pressure was hydrostatically adjusted. Intraocular pressure was measured by means of dynamic contour tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry, and Tono-Pen XL while adjusting true intraocular pressure to 17, 33, and 50 mm Hg. Ultrasound pachymetry was performed. Results: Mean corneal thickness was 914.5 ± 33.3 μm (730–1015 μm). In true intraocular pressure of 33 mm Hg, Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry significantly underestimated true intraocular pressure (mean Goldmann applanation tonometry: 14.7 ± 4.8 mm Hg, p < 0.001, mean dynamic contour tonometry: 21.6 ± 6.8, p < 0.001). Tono-Pen XL also underestimated, but difference was not statistically significant (Tono-Pen XL: 27.9 ± 9.7, p = 0.064). In true intraocular pressure of 50 mm Hg, all three methods significantly underestimated (Goldmann applanation tonometry: 17.6 ± 5.3 mm Hg, p < 0.001, dynamic contour tonometry: 26.8 ± 6.3 mm Hg, p < 0.001, Tono-Pen XL: 35.6 ± 8.4 mm Hg, p < 0.001). The error in measured intraocular pressure for each method (true minus measured intraocular pressure) was significantly correlated to true intraocular pressure ( p < 0.001). The intraocular pressure measurements of each eye taken under true intraocular pressure of 17 and 33 mm Hg with the three methods were correlated to each other. Measurements taken under intraocular pressure of 50 mmHg were not correlated to each other. Corneal thickness was not correlated to intraocular pressure measurement. Conclusion: Goldmann applanation tonometry, dynamic contour tonometry, and Tono-Pen XL underestimate intraocular pressure when measured under edematous conditions. Tono-Pen XL showed better accuracy, especially in lower true intraocular pressure. The measurement error increases when true intraocular pressure increases in all three methods.

Intraocular pressure measurements in diabetes mellitus

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1432-1439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Ramm ◽  
Robert Herber ◽  
Eberhard Spoerl ◽  
Lutz E Pillunat ◽  
Naim Terai
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Corvis St

Purpose: To investigate the impact of diabetes mellitus–induced changes on intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry, Ocular Response Analyzer, and Corvis ST. Methods: Measurements were done using Goldmann applanation tonometry, Ocular Response Analyzer, and Corvis ST in 69 diabetic patients. Biomechanical-corrected intraocular pressure values by Ocular Response Analyzer (IOPcc) and Corvis ST (bIOP) were used. In addition, biometry and tomography were performed and information on diabetes mellitus specific factors was collected. Results were compared to an age-matched group of 68 healthy subjects. Results: In diabetes mellitus, Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure (P = 0.193) and central corneal thickness (P = 0.184) were slightly increased. Also, IOPcc (P = 0.075) and bIOP (P = 0.542) showed no significant group difference. In both groups, IOPcc was higher than Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure (P = 0.002, P < 0.001), while bIOP was nearly equal to Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure (P = 0.795, P = 0.323). Central corneal thickness showed a tendency to higher values in poorly controlled than in controlled diabetes mellitus (P = 0.059). Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure correlated to central corneal thickness, while IOPcc and bIOP were independent from central corneal thickness in both groups. All intraocular pressure values showed significant associations to corneal biomechanical parameters. Only in diabetes mellitus, bIOP was correlated to Pachy slope (P = 0.023). Conclusion: In diabetes mellitus, Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure was slightly, but not significantly, increased, which might be caused by a higher central corneal thickness and changes in corneal biomechanical properties. However, intraocular pressure values measured by Ocular Response Analyzer and Corvis ST were not significantly different between diabetes mellitus patients and healthy subjects. The bIOP showed a higher agreement with Goldmann applanation tonometry than IOPcc and was independent from central corneal thickness.

scholarly journals The Effect of Corneal Thickness, Densitometry and Curvature on Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Applanation, Rebound and Dynamic Contour Tonometry

Vision ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Marco Antonio de Castro Olyntho Junior ◽  
Lucas Bertazzi Augusto ◽  
Carolina P. B. Gracitelli ◽  
Andrew J. Tatham
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Corneal Astigmatism ◽  
Dynamic Contour Tonometry ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Corneal Densitometry ◽  
The Relationship

Evaluate the effect of corneal thickness, densitometry and curvature on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), non-contact tonometry (NCT), rebound tonometry (RT), and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT). A cross-sectional prospective study involving 40 participants was performed. Corneal measurements were obtained using Pentacam (Oculus GMbH, Wetzlar, Germany), densitometry was measured at annuli of 0–2, 2–6, 6–10 and 10–12 mm. The relationship between corneal thickness (central, 4 and 6 mm), corneal astigmatism and corneal densitometry and IOP was examined. There was a significant relationship between corneal thickness (central, 4 and 6 mm) and GAT180, GAT90, RT, and NCT (P < 0.001 for all comparisons) but not for DCT. Higher corneal densitometry (6–10 mm and 10–12 mm zones) was associated with higher IOP from GAT180 and GAT90, and higher densitometry in the 6–10 mm zone correlated with higher IOP from NCT, however corneal densitometry increased with age. Accounting for age, the relationship between corneal densitometry and IOP measurements was not significant. In eyes with greater corneal astigmatism there was a greater difference between GAT90 and GAT180 measurements. IOP measurements may be affected by corneal thickness, densitometry and curvature. DCT was less affected by properties of the cornea compared to other devices.

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

Eye ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Y F Ku ◽  
H V Danesh-Meyer ◽  
J P Craig ◽  
G D Gamble ◽  
C N J McGhee
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Dynamic Contour Tonometry
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document