Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurement between Non-Contact and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry among Glaucoma Patients in Ratchaburi Hospital

2020 ◽  
Vol 103 (8) ◽  
pp. 819-823
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Outpatient Clinic ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Iop Measurement ◽  
The Mean

Objective: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) values acquired from the non-contact tonometers and a Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. Materials and Methods: The present study included 300 eyes from 150 participants that attended the glaucoma outpatient clinic. The IOP was measured using both non-contact tonometry (NCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The differences in IOP readings between the two techniques were evaluated. Results: The mean IOP as measured by NCT was 16.26±6.95 mmHg, when that of measured by GAT was 16.11±8.43 mmHg. The mean difference between the two techniques of measurement was 0.147±3.01 mmHg. The values acquired from NCT were slightly higher than those acquired by GAT in 49% of patients, and this difference was more distinct when the IOP as measured by GAT more than 21 mmHg. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant correlation in the measurement of IOP between non-contact and GAT tonometers. NCT is a proper method for mass screenings of IOP even if the IOP measurement by NCT is slightly higher than by GAT. Keywords: Tonometry, Comparison, Glaucoma, Non-contact tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometerv

scholarly journals The Association of Central Corneal Thickness and Intraocular Pressure Measures by Non-Contact Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry among Glaucoma Patients.

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Kyei ◽  
Frank Assiamah ◽  
Michael Agyemang Kwarteng ◽  
Cynthia Pakyennu Gboglu
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
The Right

BACKGROUND፡ The aim of this study was to determine whether Central Corneal Thickness (CCT) is associated with intraocular pressure measurement (IOP) with a Non-contact tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients.MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved two hundred and thirty-two eyes of clinically diagnosed glaucoma patients receiving care at a referral facility. IOP measurements were obtained using both the Non-Contact Tonometer (NCT) and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT). The association between age, ethnicity, and CCT, as well as CCT on the measures of NCT and GAT, were analyzed.RESULTS: There were 64(55.2%) males and 52 (44.8%) females and their ages ranged from 18 to 85 years (mean age = 47.72; SD ±15.75 years). There was a weak positive correlation between the CCT and NCT findings in the right eye (r = 0.19, n = 116, p < 0.05) and in the left eye (r = 0.25, n = 116, p < 0.05). However, there was no correlation between CCT and GAT measurements. Age had a significant correlation with CCT while gender and ethnicity had no significant correlation.CONCLUSION: The study found a significant association between CCT and NCT. However, there was no significant association between CCT and GAT. CCT had an association with age but independent of gender and ethnicity since there was no significant relationship between these variables.

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.

Agreement of Intraocular Pressure Measurement of Icare ic200 with Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in Adult Eyes with Normal Cornea

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swathi Vallabh Badakere ◽  
Raghava Chary ◽  
Nikhil S. Choudhari ◽  
Harsha L. Rao ◽  
Chandrasekhar Garudadri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Applanation Tonometer

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.

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

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.

Comparison of intraocular pressure using Goldmann applanation tonometry versus non-contact tonometry in eyes with high-viscosity silicone oil

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 494-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dionysios D Pagoulatos ◽  
Zoi G Kapsala ◽  
Olga E Makri ◽  
Ilias G Georgalas ◽  
Constantinos D Georgakopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Silicone Oil ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Measurement Techniques ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
Iop Measurement ◽  
Prospective Comparative Study ◽  
Silicone Oil Tamponade

Background: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and air tonometer (non-contact tonometry [NT]) in vitrectomized eyes with high-viscosity silicone oil tamponade, as well as in normal eyes. Patients and Methods: In this prospective comparative study, 32 eyes with silicone oil tamponade of high viscosity (5700 CS) and 32 normal fellow eyes were included. IOP was measured by GAT and air tonometer 30 ± 12 days after vitrectomy, while measurements of central corneal thickness (CCT) were also obtained. Results: In eyes with silicone oil, IOP was 20.09 ± 4.91 mmHg and 16.75 ± 3.86 mmHg using contact tonometer and air tonometer, respectively ( p < 0.0001). In normal eyes, IOP was 16.41 ± 2.15 mmHg and 16.31 ± 2.49 mmHg using the same tonometry techniques and this difference was not statistically significant ( p = 0.598). In addition, no significant correlation was detected between IOP measurements using both techniques and age, gender, CCT, and type of lens. Conclusions: It seems that GAT overestimates IOP in eyes with high-viscosity silicone oil compared with NT, while both IOP measurement techniques in normal eyes provide similar values. Further assessment of available IOP measurement methods could possibly establish the most accurate technique for IOP estimation in vitrectomized eyes with silicone oil tamponade.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document