Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Icare PRO Rebound Tonometer, Tomey FT-1000 Noncontact Tonometer, and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in Healthy Subjects

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 613-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mete Güler ◽  
Şemsettin Bilak ◽  
Burak Bilgin ◽  
Ali Şimşek ◽  
Musa Çapkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Noncontact Tonometer

Comparison of the Intraocular Pressure Measured Using the New Rebound Tonometer Icare ic100 and Icare TA01i or Goldmann Applanation Tonometer

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shunsuke Nakakura ◽  
Etsuko Mori ◽  
Yuki Fujio ◽  
Yasuko Fujisawa ◽  
Kanae Matsuya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer

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.

Agreement profiles for rebound and applanation tonometry in normal and glaucomatous children

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 379-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanne Esmael ◽  
Yomna M Ismail ◽  
Abdelrahman M Elhusseiny ◽  
Alaa E Fayed ◽  
Hala M Elhilali
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Congenital Glaucoma ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Primary Congenital Glaucoma ◽  
Rebound Tonometer ◽  
Age Variations ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Level Of Agreement

Objectives: To investigate agreement between intraocular pressure measurements by the rebound tonometer and handheld Perkins applanation tonometer in children with and without primary congenital glaucoma and test agreement with intraocular pressure and age variations. Materials and methods: A prospective non-interventional comparative study done on 223 eyes of 115 children, 161 normal eyes, and 62 eyes with primary congenital glaucoma. Intraocular pressure measurements were obtained in the upright position by rebound tonometer first, followed by installation of topical anesthetic eye drops (benoxinate), then measured by Perkins applanation tonometer. Results: For all eyes, mean difference between Perkins applanation tonometer and rebound tonometer was −0.59 ± 2.59 mmHg, p = 0.001. Regression analysis with (r) = 0.9, (r2) = 0.79, and p < 0.001. In primary congenital glaucoma: there was a mean difference of −.79 ± 2.82 (p = 0.032), a good correlation with (r) = 0.94, (r2) = 0.87%, and 95% level of agreement: –6.34 to +4.76. In normal eyes: mean difference was −.52 ± 2.5 (p = 0.01), correlation: (r) = 0.8, (r2) = 0.64, and p = 0.001. The 95% level of agreement −5.41 and +4.36 mmHg. In intraocular pressure ⩽ 15 mmHg: mean difference −0.89 ± 2.15 mmHg, 95% level of agreement between −5.1 and +3.32 mmHg, p < 0.001. In intraocular pressure >15 mmHg: mean difference was 0.04 ± 3.28 mmHg, 95% level of agreement −6.38 and +6.46 mmHg, p = 0.914. Conclusion: There is a good correlation between rebound tonometer and Perkins applanation tonometer in children with and without primary congenital glaucoma; however, rebound tonometer overestimates the intraocular pressure, and in intraocular pressure >15 mmHg there is less agreement between the two devices. Hence, in higher intraocular pressure measurement caution should be taken when interpreting rebound tonometer readings, and a confirmatory measurement using Perkins applanation tonometer is advised.

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.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document