scholarly journals Comprasion of ICare Rebound Tonometer and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in High Myopia

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Halil Huseyin Cagatay ◽  
Metin Ekinci ◽  
Zeliha Yazar ◽  
Gokcen Gokce ◽  
Erdinc Ceylan
Keyword(s):  
High Myopia ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Anterior Chamber Depth ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Highly Correlated ◽  
Icare Rebound Tonometer

Purpose.To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and the ICare rebound tonometer (RBT) in high myopic eyes.Patients and Methods. This randomized prospective study included 40 eyes of 40 patients with high myopia. All patients’ central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), axial length (AXL), keratometry, and refractive measurements were recorded and followed by IOP measurement with RBT and GAT.Results. The average CCT, AXL, and ACD were determined to be514.65±32 μm,27.65±2.22 mm, and3.25±0.51 mm, respectively. MeanKwas43.27±1.4 D and mean spherical equivalent was-11.31±4.30 D. The mean IOP values obtained by RBT and GAT were17.18±3.72 mmHg and16.48±3.19 mmHg, respectively. The deviations of RBT readings from corrected GAT values were highly correlated with CCT values (r=0.588,P=0.0001). The mean corrected GAT reading was17.49±3.01 mmHg. Linear regression analysis showed that a CCT change of 10 μm resulted in an RBT reading deviation of 0.57 mmHg. The Bland-Altman scatter-plot and McNemar test showed a clinically good level of agreement between the two tonometers.Conclusion. This study found a good agreement level between the two tonometers in high myopic patients and that RBT measurements are influenced by CCT variations.

scholarly journals Comparison of IOP Measurement by Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, ICare Rebound Tonometer, and Tono-Pen in Keratoconus Patients after MyoRing Implantation

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Rateb ◽  
Mahmoud Abdel-Radi ◽  
Zeiad Eldaly ◽  
Mohamed Nagy Elmohamady ◽  
Asaad Noor El Din
Keyword(s):  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Altman Analysis ◽  
Bland Altman Analysis ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Icare Rebound Tonometer

Purpose. To evaluate the different IOP readings by Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), ICare rebound tonometer, and Tono-Pen in keratoconus patients after MyoRing implantation. To assess the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) and thinnest corneal location (TCL) on IOP measurements by different tonometers. Setting. Prospective observational study was conducted in two private centers in Egypt from February 2015 to November 2016. Methods. Seventeen eyes of 10 patients suffering from keratoconus and who underwent MyoRing implantation were recruited. All subjects underwent GAT, ICare, and Tono-Pen IOP measurements in random order. Central corneal thickness and thinnest corneal location were assessed by Pentacam. Difference in mean in IOP readings was assessed by T-test. Correlation between each pair of devices was evaluated by Pearson correlation coefficient. The Bland–Altman analysis was used to assess intertonometer agreement. Results. Seventeen eyes (10 patients) were evaluated. The mean IOP reading was 13.9 ± 3.68, 12.41 ± 2.87, and 14.29 ± 1.31 mmHg in GAT, ICare, and Tono-Pen group, respectively. There was a significant difference between IOP readings by GAT/ICare and Tono-Pen/ICare (p value: 0.032 and 0.002, respectively) with no significant difference between GAT/Tono-Pen (p value: 0.554). Mean difference in IOP measurements between GAT/ICare was 1.49 ± 2.61 mmHg, Tono-Pen/ICare was 1.89 ± 2.15 mmHg, and GAT/Tono-Pen was −0.39 ± 2.59 mmHg. There was no significant correlation between the difference in IOP readings among any pair of devices and CCC or TCL. The Bland–Altman analysis showed a reasonable agreement between any pair of tonometers.

scholarly journals IOP change after phacoemulsification with PCIOL implantation and its association with ocular biometric parameters

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 466-470
Author(s):  
Sharah Rahman ◽  
Jalal Ahmed ◽  
Anisur Rahman ◽  
Ishtiaque Anwar ◽  
Tarzia Asma Zafrullah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Graphical Representation ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Anterior Chamber Depth ◽  
Posterior Chamber ◽  
Biometric Parameters ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Impact

: To assess the impact on intraocular pressure (IOP) after Phacoemulsification (PE) with Posterior Chamber Intraocular Lens (PCIOL) implantation and its relation with ocular biometric parameters. The study was a prospective observational study included 524 eyes with normal IOP (11-21 mmHg) who underwent uneventful Phacoemulsification with PCIOL Implantation surgery for age-related cataract. IOP, Central Corneal Thickness (CCT), Anterior Chamber Depth (ACD), Axial Length (AL) were measured pre-operatively and one month post-operatively by Goldman Applanation Tonometer, Corneal Pachymeter and Optical Coherence Biometer, respectively. The post-operative IOP change and its relation with preoperative biometric parameters were determined.: The mean pre-operative and post-operative IOP was 13.44±1.98 & 11.54±1.66mmHg, respectively, with an average IOP reduction after one month of 1.90±0.61mmHg. The mean pre-operative and post-operative ACD was 3.27±0.24 and 3.66±0.27 mm, respectively, with an average increase of 0.39 ±0.3 mm. Paired t-test showed post-operative IOP reduction was significantly associated with preoperative IOP (p<0.001) and ACD (p<0.001). But CCT and AL were not significantly associated. The linear regression analysis confirmed the proportional reduction of post-operative IOP, r 0.921. So 92.1% of the preoperative IOP is proportional to post-operative IOP reduction. The graphical representation shows more the pre-operative IOP, more the post-operative IOP reduction.: IOP is significantly reduced, and ACD increased after PE with PCIOL implantation surgery and is associated with post-operative IOP reduction. The post-operative IOP reduction is proportional to pre-operative IOP, and more the preoperative IOP, more the post-operative IOP reduction.

scholarly journals EFFICACY AND CORRELATION OF INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE MEASURED BY NON-CONTACT, REBOUND AND GOLDMANN APPLANATION TONOMETER WITH CORNEAL THICKNESS, TRUE IOP AND CORNEAL CURVATURE IN A TERTIARY HOSPITAL.

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Santanu Das ◽  
Nayana Nagesh ◽  
Kiran Kumar L ◽  
Sundeep Shetty
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Acute Angle ◽  
Angle Closure ◽  
Corneal Curvature ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
The Mean

ABSTRACT: AIM-To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) measured by Non-Contact tonometer (NCT), Rebound tonometer (RBT) and Goldmann Applanation tonometer (GAT) and their correlation with central corneal thickness (CCT), true IOP and corneal curvature. Reliability of each tonometer. METHODS-500 random patients aged 18 years and above were taken up for the study. Patients with anterior and posterior segment pathologies like corneal ulcer, leukoma, staphyloma, corneal lacerations, ectatic corneal conditions, corneal dystrophies, oedema, perforations, acute angle closure glaucoma, retinal detachments, vitreous haemorrhage and unwilling patients were excluded from the study. IOP was recorded using NCT, RBT and GAT after assessing the patient's visual acuity. Following IOP measurement, central corneal thickness (CCT) of each patient was measured using pachymetry. Kvalues were measured using an autorefractometer. All the data were collected and tabulated for statistical analysis to obtain results. RESULTS: The mean CCT in males was 0.5350 mm and in females 0.5340 mm respectively. The mean IOP measured by NCT is 16.43 mm hg whereas the mean IOP measured by GAT is 15.43 mm hg. IOP measured by NCT is significantly higher than the IOP measured by GAT (p<0.001). When NCT and RBT are compared NCT values are significantly higher than that of RBT(p<0.001). Although the mean RBT IOP 15.83 mm hg is higher than the mean GAT IOP of 15.42 mm hg the values are not statistically significant. When correlated with CCT all the tonometers showed significant correlation with GAT showing the strongest correlation. NCT overestimates IOP in normal, thin and thicker corneas when compared to GAT and are statistically significant. RBT also overestimates in the normal and thick corneas when compared to GAT but their values are much closer to GAT values in thinner corneas. The IOP measured by all the 3 tonometers correlated with corrected IOP with NCT showing the best correlation followed by GAT. There was no significant correlation between K and IOP in our study. CONCLUSION-From the present study we can conclude that IOP measured by NCT and RBT is higher than GAT. NCT values are significantly higher than GAT values in thin and normal corneas whereas it overestimates more in thicker corneas. RBT values are significantly higher than that of GAT in normal and thick corneas. All the tonometers show significant correlation with CCT with GAT showing the strongest correlation. So, it is always advisable to measure the corrected IOP for each patient after considering the CCT. Keywords- Non-contact tonometer; Goldmann applanation tonometer; central corneal thickness; intraocular pressure; Rebound tonometer, true IOP, Corneal curvature.  

scholarly journals A comparison of intraocular pressure values obtained with the Tono-Pachymeter NT530P, iCare® rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer

2011 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Rampersad ◽  
K. P. Mashige ◽  
S. Jhetam
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Correlation And Regression Analysis ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Bland Altman Method ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right

The purpose of this study was to compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured with the Tono-Pachymeter NT530P (Tonopachy™) and the iCare® rebound tonometer (iCare®) with those obtained by the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). The right eyes of 105 subjects aged 18 to 82 years (mean age = 29.27 ± 14.67 years) were assessed with the three tonometers. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured first using the Tonopachy™ and then IOP was measured by Tonopachy™, iCare® and GAT. The data was analyzed with descriptive statistics, paired  t-test, correlation and regression analysis. The Bland-Altman method of analysis was used to evaluate agreements between the sets of data from the three devices. The CCT values ranged from 440 µm to 606 µm (mean= 518.49 ± 33.01 µm). There was little or no correlation between CCT and IOP for any of the instruments used in this study (r = 0.29 for Tonopachy™, r = 0.22 for iCare®, r = 0.17 for GAT). The mean IOP measured with the Tonopachy™ was 14.31 ± 3.57 mmHg (range 8.7 mmHg to 31 mmHg) and 16.64 ± 4.38 mmHg (range 8 mmHg to 32 mmHg) using the iCare®. The mean IOP measured with the GAT was 14.79 ± 3.09 mmHg (range 8.7 mmHg to 29.7 mmHg). Using the Bland-Altman method, the upper and lower limits of agreement between the Tonopachy™ and GAT, iCare® and GAT, iCare® and Tonopachy™ were 5.1 mmHg and –4.2 mmHg, 8.6 mmHg and –4.9 mmHg, 7.5 mmHg and –2.8 mmHg respectively. In 79.1% of the eyes studied, the mean IOP difference between Tonopachy™ and GAT was less than 3 mmHg and in 20.9% of the eyes, the difference was greater than 3 mmHg. However, mean IOP differences of greater than 3 mmHg were obtained by iCare® in comparison with GAT (40%) and Tonopachy™ (34.3%) respectively. Findings of this study suggest that the Tonopachy™ yielded IOP readings that were consistent with those of GAT values while iCare® yielded higher IOP values compared to both GAT and Tonopachy™. (S Afr Optom 2011 70(3) 109-116)

Self-measurement with Icare HOME tonometer, patients’ feasibility and acceptability

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Cvenkel ◽  
Makedonka Atanasovska Velkovska ◽  
Vesna Dimovska Jordanova
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Pressure Data ◽  
Limits Of Agreement ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Perception Of Self ◽  
The Mean

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of self-measurement of intraocular pressure using Icare Home rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer and assess acceptability of self-tonometry in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Methods: In the study, 117 subjects were trained to use Icare Home for self-measurement. Icare Home tonometer readings were compared with Goldmann applanation tonometer, including one eye per patient. Agreement between the two methods of measurement was evaluated by Bland and Altmann analysis. Questionnaire was used to evaluate patients’ perception of self-tonometry. Results: One hundred and three out of 117 patients (88%) were able to measure their own intraocular pressure and 96 (82%) fulfilled the requirements for certification. The mean (SD) difference Goldmann applanation tonometer minus Icare Home was 1.2 (2.4) mmHg (95% limits of agreement, –3.4 to 5.9 mmHg). The magnitude of bias between the two methods depended on central corneal thickness, with greater bias at central corneal thickness <500 µm. In 65 out of 96 subjects (67.7%), Icare Home results were within 2 mmHg of the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Seventy-three out of 93 (78.5%) felt that self-tonometry was easy to use and 75 patients (80.6%) responded that they would use the device at home. Conclusion: Icare Home tonometry tends to slightly underestimate intraocular pressure compared to Goldmann applanation tonometer. Most patients were able to perform self-tonometry and found it acceptable for home use. Measurements using rebound self-tonometry could improve the quality of intraocular pressure data and optimize treatment regimen.

Ocular Response Analyzer versus Goldmann Applanation Tonometer for Measurement of Intra-Ocular Pressure

QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 114 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rim Raafat Fayez ◽  
Mohamed Adel Abdelshafik ◽  
Ahmed Ibrahim Aboulenain ◽  
Momen Mahmoud Hamdi
Keyword(s):  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Iop Measurement ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Method Of Evaluation

Abstract Background Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) has been the gold standard for intraocular pressure(IOP) measurement ,since its appearance in clinical practice around 50 years ago.(1) In spite of being almost unchallenged, the last few years have become a sustained search for a new standard method for IOP measurement,. One such recently marketed instrument is the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA), which able to detect the corneal biomechanics. Aim of the Work is to compare the IOP measurement estimated by Goldmann applanation tonometer to that of ORA and detect the effect of state of refraction, corneal topography and central corneal thickness (CCT) on these measurements. Patients and Methods This cross-sectional study was done from March 2018 to October 2018 on 65 eyes of patients visiting the outpatient clinic. Results The mean GAT IOP was 15.938 ± 6.041 while the mean ORA (IOPcc) and (IOPg) were 19.711 ± 7.59 and 17.242 ± 7.35 mm Hg respectively. There is a strong positive relationship between GAT IOP & ORA IOPg measurement (r = 0.880 – p = &lt;0.001*). Also finding a weak yet significant correlation between IOPg and CCT (r = 0.385, p = 0.001). None of the pressure measurements was affected by refraction or corneal curvature significantly. Conclusion In conclusion, our results suggest that mean IOPs obtained by ORA were significantly higher than that of GAT with different influencing factors that are not completely understood. caution has to be sought when using the ORA, the values obtained ought not to be used interchangeably with the values obtained by 1 GAT, despite the presence of a positive correlation between these values. This underlines the importance of using one and only method of evaluation of the IOP for every patient in successive follow-up visits.

Icare versus Goldmann in a randomised middle-aged population

2020 ◽  
pp. 112067212092138
Author(s):  
Katri Stoor ◽  
Elina Karvonen ◽  
Pasi Ohtonen ◽  
M Johanna Liinamaa ◽  
Ville Saarela
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Screening Study ◽  
The Difference

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the measurements of intraocular pressure by two tonometers, the Icare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer, in a randomised screening study. The influence of refraction and central corneal thickness on the measurements was also evaluated. Methods Intraocular pressure was measured with rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer in 1266 participants; refraction and central corneal thickness were also determined. One randomised eye of each participant was selected for this report’s analysis. A Bland–Altman plot was used to compare the values obtained with the two devices. Results The correlation between rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer was good: the intraclass correlation coefficient (r) between the two methods was 0.735 ( p < 0.001). The mean difference (rebound tonometer–Goldmann applanation tonometer) was 0.11 ± 2.3 mmHg. The difference was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 0.13, p = 0.09). With increasing central corneal thickness, not only did intraocular pressure values with both devices increase, but the difference between them also increased. Refraction (spherical equivalent) did not influence intraocular pressure or the rebound tonometer–Goldmann applanation tonometer difference. However, high astigmatism (≥2D) exerted an influence on intraocular pressure values taken with Goldmann applanation tonometer. Conclusion Measurements with rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer are relatively uniform although rebound tonometer slightly overestimated intraocular pressure. Both rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer and the difference between these devices were affected by central corneal thickness but not by refraction. Higher astigmatism affected Goldmann applanation tonometer more than rebound tonometer. It is concluded that rebound tonometer is a reliable method for measuring intraocular pressure in a population-based screening study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document