Comparison Of Intraocular Pressure (IOP) Measured By Non-Contact (Air–Puff) Tonometer Compared With Goldmann Applanation Tonometer

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.

Download Full-text

Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by ocular response analyzer and Goldmann applanation tonometer after corneal refractive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Ophthalmology ◽

10.1186/s12886-019-1288-6 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Hui Zhang ◽

Zhengtao Sun ◽

Lin Li ◽

Ran Sun ◽

Haixia Zhang

Keyword(s):

Intraocular Pressure ◽

Subgroup Analysis ◽

Refractive Surgery ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Mean Difference ◽

Ocular Response Analyzer ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽

Applanation Tonometer ◽

Corneal Refractive Surgery

Abstract Background Accurate measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) after corneal refractive surgery is of great significance to clinic, and comparisons among various IOP measuring instruments are not rare, but there is a lack of unified analysis. Although Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT) is currently the internationally recognized gold standard for IOP measurement, its results are severely affected by central corneal thickness (CCT). Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) takes certain biomechanical properties of cornea into account and is supposed to be less dependent of CCT. In this study, we conducted the meta-analysis to systematically assess the differences and similarities of IOP values measured by ORA and GAT in patients after corneal refractive surgery from the perspective of evidence-based medicine. Methods The authors searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of science, Cochrane library and Chinese electronic databases of CNKI and Wanfang) from Jan. 2005 to Jan. 2019, studies describing IOP comparisons measured by GAT and ORA after corneal refractive surgery were included. Quality assessment, subgroup analysis, meta-regression analysis and publication bias analysis were applied in succession. Results Among the 273 literatures initially retrieved, 8 literatures (13 groups of data) with a total of 724 eyes were included in the meta-analysis, and all of which were English literatures. In the pooled analysis, the weighted mean difference (WMD) between IOPcc and IOPGAT was 2.67 mmHg (95% CI: 2.20~3.14 mmHg, p < 0.0001), the WMD between IOPg and IOPGAT was − 0.27 mmHg (95% CI: − 0.70~0.16 mmHg, p = 0.2174). In the subgroup analysis of postoperative IOPcc and IOPGAT, the heterogeneity among the data on surgical procedure was zero, while the heterogeneity of other subgroups was still more than 50%. The comparison of the mean difference of pre- and post-operative IOP (∆IOP) was: mean-∆IOPg > mean-∆IOPGAT > mean-∆IOPcc. Conclusions IOPcc, which is less dependent on CCT, may be more close to the true IOP after corneal refractive surgery compared with IOPg and IOPGAT, and the recovery of IOPcc after corneal surface refractive surgery may be more stable than that after lamellar refractive surgery.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Glaucoma ◽

10.1097/ijg.0000000000001138 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 28 (2) ◽

pp. 172-177 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Shunsuke Nakakura ◽

Etsuko Mori ◽

Yuki Fujio ◽

Yasuko Fujisawa ◽

Kanae Matsuya ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Intraocular Pressure ◽

Rebound Tonometer ◽

Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽

Applanation Tonometer

Download Full-text

Intraocular pressure measurement after penetrating keratoplasty: minified Goldmann applanation tonometer, pneumatonometer, and Tono-Pen versus manometry.

British Journal of Ophthalmology ◽

10.1136/bjo.78.9.671 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 78 (9) ◽

pp. 671-676 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

M J Menage ◽

P L Kaufman ◽

M A Croft ◽

S P Landay

Keyword(s):

Intraocular Pressure ◽

Pressure Measurement ◽

Penetrating Keratoplasty ◽

Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽

Applanation Tonometer

Download Full-text

Correlation between Central Corneal thickness and Intraocular Pressure measured with Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT) in healthy individuals

Journal of Medical Science And clinical Research ◽

10.18535/jmscr/v7i5.153 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 7 (5) ◽

Author(s):

Dr Shazia Qayum ◽

Keyword(s):

Intraocular Pressure ◽

Central Corneal Thickness ◽

Corneal Thickness ◽

Healthy Individuals ◽

Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽

Applanation Tonometer

Download Full-text

Estimation of Goldmann applanation tonometer intraocular pressure (IOP) from scleral Schiotz IOP values in eyes with type-1 keratoprostheses

British Journal of Ophthalmology ◽

10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-318121 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. bjophthalmol-2020-318121

Author(s):

Sirisha Senthil ◽

Raghava Chary ◽

Mohammed Hasnat Ali ◽

Nikhil S Choudhari ◽

Chandra Sekhar Garudadri

Keyword(s):

Intraocular Pressure ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Anterior Segment ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Study Cohort ◽

Altman Plot ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽

Applanation Tonometer

PurposeTo validate estimation of Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) intraocular pressure (IOP) from scleral Schiotz IOP measurements using a regression model in normal eyes and eyes with type-1 keratoprostheses.MethodsIn this prospective cross-sectional study, cohort-1 had 253 normal anterior segment eyes, and cohort-2 had 100 eyes with type-1 keratoprostheses. Scleral Schiotz IOP measurements were used (in a non-linear model) to predict GAT IOP values for these eyes. Accuracy of predicted GAT IOP values was assessed using actual GAT IOP values for normal eyes, while for type-1 keratoprosthetic eyes, finger tension (FT) IOP assessments by an experienced glaucoma specialist were used. Primary outcome was agreement between FT IOP (assessed by an experienced glaucoma specialist) and predicted GAT IOP-derived clusters.ResultsThe actual values of GAT IOP measurements in normal eyes (n=253; mean age ±SD, 51.35±15.56 years) ranged between 6 mm Hg and 62 mm Hg (mean=22±10.05 mm Hg). Estimated and actual GAT IOP values for normal eyes were very similar (mean difference=0.05 mm Hg with limits of agreement: −5.39 to 5.5 by Bland-Altman plot). Of the 100 eyes with type-1 keratoprostheses, 68 were classified as having digitally normal IOP, 28 as borderline and 4 as high. The agreement between classification by FT assessment and model-predicted GAT IOP values was substantial (Kappa=0.81, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93). The accuracy of the model in assessing IOP was found to be 91% (95% CI 0.84 to 0.96).ConclusionScleral Schiotz IOP values along with our predictive model can be an alternative objective method to FT IOP in assessing IOP in eyes with type-1 keratoprostheses.

Download Full-text