Experimental Assessment of the Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Non-Contact Tonometer Airflows

(1) The aim of the study was to investigate the spatial and temporal characteristics of the airflow created by two commercially available non-contact tonometers: the CorvisST and the Ocular Response Analyser (ORA). (2) The airflow pressure was measured using a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) pressure sensor to investigate the spatial and temporal distribution. The airflow from the CorvisST and Ocular Response Analyser were mapped to a 600 µm and a 1 mm resolution grid, respectively. (3) Central airflow pressure of the CorvisST (96.4 ± 1.4 mmHg) was higher than that of the Ocular Response Analyser (91.7 ± 0.7 mmHg). The duration of the air-puffs also differed, with the CorvisST showing a shorter duration (21.483 ± 0.2881 ms) than that of the ORA (23.061 ± 0.1872 ms). The rising edge of the CorvisST airflow pressure profile demonstrated a lower gradient (+8.94 mmHg/ms) compared to that of the Ocular Response Analyser (+11.00 mmHg/ms). Both had similar decay response edges: CorvisST −11.18 mmHg/ms, Ocular Response Analyser −11.65 mmHg/ms. (4) The study presents a valid method to investigate the physical dimensions of the airflow pressure of non-contact tonometers. Novel findings relating to the magnitude, duration and spatial characteristics of the respective airflow pressures are reported. It is anticipated that this information will better inform clinical studies and theoretical models relating to ocular biomechanics.

Experimental Assessment of the Spatial and Temporal Distribu-Tion of Non-contact Tonometer Airflows

(1) Aim of the study was to investigate the spatial and temporal characteristics of the airflow created by two commercially available non-contact tonometers, the CorvisST and the Ocular Re-sponse Analyser. (2) The airflow pressure was measured using a MEMS pressure sensor to inves-tigate the spatial and temporal distribution. The airflow from the CorvisST and Ocular Response Analyser were mapped to a 600µm and a 1mm resolution grid, respectively. (3) Central airflow pressure of the CorvisST (96.4 ± 1.4)mmHg was higher than the Ocular Response Analyser (91.7 ± 0.7)mmHg. The duration of the air-puffs also differed, with the CorvisST showing a shorter du-ration (21.483 ± 0.2881)ms than the ORA (23.061 ± 0.1872)ms. The rising edge of the CorvisST airflow pressure profile demonstrated a lower gradient (+8.94mmHg/ms) compared to the Oc-ular Response Analyser (+11.00mmHg/ms). Both had similar decay response edges; CorvisST -11.18mmHg/ms, Ocular Response Analyser -11.65mmHg/ms. (4) The study presents a valid method to investigate physical dimensions of the airflow pressure of non-contact tonometers. Novel findings relating to the magnitude, duration and spatial characteristics of the respective airflow pressures are reported. It is anticipated that this information will better inform clinical studies and theoretical models relating to ocular biomechanics.

Intra-ocular pressure measurements using the Ocular Response Analyser and ICare tonometer: A comparison

The accurate measurement of intra-ocular pressure (IOP) is an important procedure in the detection and treatment of glaucoma. The Ocular Response Analyser (ORA) and the ICare rebound tonometer are two recent additions to the instruments available to eye care practitioners for the measurement of IOP. The present study investigated whether the ORA and the ICare tonometer can be used interchangeably. Twenty-eight subjects had three measures of IOP taken using the two instruments. The ORA provides two different measures of IOP – Goldmann and cornea compensated IOP – whilst the ICare tonometer provides IOP only. The results of this study suggest that only the ORA Goldmann and ICare IOP measures are comparable. In general, it is advisable not to use the ORA and ICare tonometers interchangeably.