scholarly journals The Effect of Corneal Thickness, Densitometry and Curvature on Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Applanation, Rebound and Dynamic Contour Tonometry

Vision ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Marco Antonio de Castro Olyntho Junior ◽  
Lucas Bertazzi Augusto ◽  
Carolina P. B. Gracitelli ◽  
Andrew J. Tatham
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Corneal Astigmatism ◽  
Dynamic Contour Tonometry ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Corneal Densitometry ◽  
The Relationship

Evaluate the effect of corneal thickness, densitometry and curvature on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), non-contact tonometry (NCT), rebound tonometry (RT), and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT). A cross-sectional prospective study involving 40 participants was performed. Corneal measurements were obtained using Pentacam (Oculus GMbH, Wetzlar, Germany), densitometry was measured at annuli of 0–2, 2–6, 6–10 and 10–12 mm. The relationship between corneal thickness (central, 4 and 6 mm), corneal astigmatism and corneal densitometry and IOP was examined. There was a significant relationship between corneal thickness (central, 4 and 6 mm) and GAT180, GAT90, RT, and NCT (P < 0.001 for all comparisons) but not for DCT. Higher corneal densitometry (6–10 mm and 10–12 mm zones) was associated with higher IOP from GAT180 and GAT90, and higher densitometry in the 6–10 mm zone correlated with higher IOP from NCT, however corneal densitometry increased with age. Accounting for age, the relationship between corneal densitometry and IOP measurements was not significant. In eyes with greater corneal astigmatism there was a greater difference between GAT90 and GAT180 measurements. IOP measurements may be affected by corneal thickness, densitometry and curvature. DCT was less affected by properties of the cornea compared to other devices.

Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Correlation with Intracameral Assessment of Intraocular Pressure

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivano Riva ◽  
Luciano Quaranta ◽  
Andrea Russo ◽  
Andreas Katsanos ◽  
Eliana Rulli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Anterior Chamber ◽  
Open Angle Glaucoma ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Dynamic Contour Tonometry ◽  
Altman Plot ◽  
Applanation Tonometer ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measured using a dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) and a Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) with in vivo intracameral IOP, and establish the relationship between DCT, GAT and central corneal thickness (CCT) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Materials and Methods We examined 50 eyes of 50 patients with POAG scheduled for glaucoma or cataract surgery. Immediately before surgery, CCT, GAT and DCT IOP were assessed, after which manometry of the anterior chamber was performed. A Bland-Altman plot was used to test the agreement among the 3 measurements of IOP, and univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to evaluate the effect of CCT on DCT and GAT. Results On average, the DCT readings were 4.0±1.6 mmHg higher than the GAT readings and 2.3±2.4 mmHg higher than the manometric readings; the GAT measurements were generally a mean 1.7±1.8 mmHg lower than the manometric readings. The CCT had an almost similar influence on DCT and GAT measurements (p=0.84). Conclusions The DCT-measured IOP was significantly higher than that measured by means of GAT and anterior chamber manometry. The DCT and GAT readings were both influenced by CCT to the same extent.

scholarly journals Accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry, and Tono-Pen XL in edematous corneas

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 251584142092319
Author(s):  
George A. Kontadakis ◽  
Alexandros Pennos ◽  
Iro Pentari ◽  
George D. Kymionis ◽  
Ioannis G. Pallikaris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Dynamic Contour Tonometry ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Ultrasound Pachymetry ◽  
Porcine Eyes

Purpose: To investigate in vitro the accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry, and Tono-Pen XL in edematous corneas. Methods: Experimental study included 20 freshly enucleated porcine eyes. Epithelium was debrided, and eyes were divided in four groups. Groups were immersed in 35%, 40%, 50%, and 60% glycerin solutions for 3 hours. Subsequently, globes were mounted in a special holder, and their intraocular pressure was hydrostatically adjusted. Intraocular pressure was measured by means of dynamic contour tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry, and Tono-Pen XL while adjusting true intraocular pressure to 17, 33, and 50 mm Hg. Ultrasound pachymetry was performed. Results: Mean corneal thickness was 914.5 ± 33.3 μm (730–1015 μm). In true intraocular pressure of 33 mm Hg, Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry significantly underestimated true intraocular pressure (mean Goldmann applanation tonometry: 14.7 ± 4.8 mm Hg, p < 0.001, mean dynamic contour tonometry: 21.6 ± 6.8, p < 0.001). Tono-Pen XL also underestimated, but difference was not statistically significant (Tono-Pen XL: 27.9 ± 9.7, p = 0.064). In true intraocular pressure of 50 mm Hg, all three methods significantly underestimated (Goldmann applanation tonometry: 17.6 ± 5.3 mm Hg, p < 0.001, dynamic contour tonometry: 26.8 ± 6.3 mm Hg, p < 0.001, Tono-Pen XL: 35.6 ± 8.4 mm Hg, p < 0.001). The error in measured intraocular pressure for each method (true minus measured intraocular pressure) was significantly correlated to true intraocular pressure ( p < 0.001). The intraocular pressure measurements of each eye taken under true intraocular pressure of 17 and 33 mm Hg with the three methods were correlated to each other. Measurements taken under intraocular pressure of 50 mmHg were not correlated to each other. Corneal thickness was not correlated to intraocular pressure measurement. Conclusion: Goldmann applanation tonometry, dynamic contour tonometry, and Tono-Pen XL underestimate intraocular pressure when measured under edematous conditions. Tono-Pen XL showed better accuracy, especially in lower true intraocular pressure. The measurement error increases when true intraocular pressure increases in all three methods.

Relationship between novel intraocular pressure measurement from Corvis ST and central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis

2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masato Matsuura ◽  
Hiroshi Murata ◽  
Yuri Fujino ◽  
Mieko Yanagisawa ◽  
Yoshitaka Nakao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Biomechanical Properties ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Corneal Hysteresis ◽  
Corneal Resistance Factor ◽  
Corvis St ◽  
The Relationship

AimsCorvis ST (CST) yields biomechanical corrected IOP (bIOP) which is purported to be less dependent on biomechanical properties. In our accompanied paper, it was suggested that the repeatability of bIOP is high. The purpose of the current study was to assess the relationship between intraocular pressure (IOP) measured with CST and central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal hysteresis (CH), in comparison with IOP measured with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and the ocular response analyzer (ORA).MethodsA total of 141 eyes from 141 subjects (35 healthy eyes and 106 glaucomatous eyes) underwent IOP measurements with GAT, CST and ORA. The relationships between IOP measurements (ORA-IOPg, ORA-IOPcc, CST-bIOP and GAT IOP) and biomechanical properties (CCT, CH and corneal resistance factor (CRF)) were analysed using the linear regression analysis.ResultsIOPg, IOPcc and GAT IOP were significantly associated with CCT (p<0.001), whereas bIOP was not significantly associated with CCT (p=0.19). IOPg, bIOP and GAT IOP were significantly associated with CH (IOPg: p<0.001; bIOP: p<0.001; GAT IOP: p=0.0054), whereas IOPcc was not significantly associated with CH (p=0.18). All of IOP records were associated with CRF (p<0.001).ConclusionThe bIOP measurement from CST is independent from CCT, but dependent on CH and CRF.

Intraocular pressure measurements in diabetes mellitus

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1432-1439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Ramm ◽  
Robert Herber ◽  
Eberhard Spoerl ◽  
Lutz E Pillunat ◽  
Naim Terai
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Corvis St

Purpose: To investigate the impact of diabetes mellitus–induced changes on intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry, Ocular Response Analyzer, and Corvis ST. Methods: Measurements were done using Goldmann applanation tonometry, Ocular Response Analyzer, and Corvis ST in 69 diabetic patients. Biomechanical-corrected intraocular pressure values by Ocular Response Analyzer (IOPcc) and Corvis ST (bIOP) were used. In addition, biometry and tomography were performed and information on diabetes mellitus specific factors was collected. Results were compared to an age-matched group of 68 healthy subjects. Results: In diabetes mellitus, Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure (P = 0.193) and central corneal thickness (P = 0.184) were slightly increased. Also, IOPcc (P = 0.075) and bIOP (P = 0.542) showed no significant group difference. In both groups, IOPcc was higher than Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure (P = 0.002, P < 0.001), while bIOP was nearly equal to Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure (P = 0.795, P = 0.323). Central corneal thickness showed a tendency to higher values in poorly controlled than in controlled diabetes mellitus (P = 0.059). Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure correlated to central corneal thickness, while IOPcc and bIOP were independent from central corneal thickness in both groups. All intraocular pressure values showed significant associations to corneal biomechanical parameters. Only in diabetes mellitus, bIOP was correlated to Pachy slope (P = 0.023). Conclusion: In diabetes mellitus, Goldmann applanation tonometry intraocular pressure was slightly, but not significantly, increased, which might be caused by a higher central corneal thickness and changes in corneal biomechanical properties. However, intraocular pressure values measured by Ocular Response Analyzer and Corvis ST were not significantly different between diabetes mellitus patients and healthy subjects. The bIOP showed a higher agreement with Goldmann applanation tonometry than IOPcc and was independent from central corneal thickness.

Comparison between different tonometers following intrastromal corneal ring segments implantation

2021 ◽  
pp. 112067212110425
Author(s):  
Mennatullah M Elfwwal ◽  
Mohamed K Elbasty ◽  
Mohamed F Khattab ◽  
Malak I ElShazly
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Femtosecond Laser ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Pressure Range ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Ocular Response Analyzer ◽  
P Value ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Intrastromal Corneal Ring

Purpose: To compare different intraocular pressure (IOP) readings in corneas with intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) taken by three different tonometers; Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), air puff tonometer, and ocular response analyzer (ORA) corneal-compensated IOP (ORA-IOPcc) and determine the relation of these measurements to different corneal parameters taken by Pentacam. Methods: An observational cross-sectional analytic study included patients who underwent ICRS keraring implantation at 3 months. In each eye, the two rings were placed using the femtosecond laser assisted technique 5.5 or 6 mm from the center. IOP was measured using three different tonometers; GAT, air puff tonometer, and ocular response analyzer (ORA) corneal-compensated IOP (ORA-IOPcc). Results: Fifty eyes of 30 patients (20 males and 10 females) aged 27.56 ± 6.38 years were included. IOP measurements by GAT, air puff tonometer, and ORA-IOPcc were 13.28 ± 2.13 mmHg, 10.47 ± 2.55 mmHg, and 13.19 ± 2.78 mmHg, respectively. Comparisons between air puff and each of GAT and ORA-IOPcc were statistically highly significant ( p-value <0.001). Conclusion: IOP measurements taken by air puff tonometer were significantly lower than those taken by GAT and ORA-IOPcc. These differences were not constant across the pressure range but increased as the pressure values determined using GAT and ORA increased. ORA-IOPcc and GAT showed similar readings. No correlation was found between any of the IOP readings taken by the three tonometers and the central corneal thickness.

scholarly journals Comparability of three intraocular pressure measurement: iCare pro rebound, non-contact and Goldmann applanation tonometry in different IOP group

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Chen ◽  
Lina Zhang ◽  
Jia Xu ◽  
Xinyi Chen ◽  
Yuxiang Gu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Iop Measurement

Abstract Background Measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) is essential for glaucoma patients. Many factors such as central corneal thickness (CCT) can affect the accuracy of IOP measurement. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement of IOP measured by non-contact tonometer (NCT), iCare pro rebound tonometer (iCare), and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in different IOP group. Methods This was a Hospital-based cross-sectional study. Two hundred subjects were enrolled in this study. All subjects underwent IOP measurement using an NCT–iCare–GAT sequence. Bland-Altman, Pearson correlation and intraclass correlation analysis were performed using SPSS 17.0 software. The influence of CCT on each IOP measurement methods was evaluated by linear regression analysis. Results The mean difference (Δ) of NCT–GAT did not differ from (Δ) iCare–GAT in IOP < 10 and 10–21 mmHg group. However, (Δ) NCT–GAT was significantly higher than (Δ) iCare–GAT in IOP 22–30 and > 30 mmHg group (P < 0.05). Bland–Altman analysis showed significant agreement between the three devices (P < 0.01). IOP measurements of the three methods were significantly correlated with CCT (P < 0.01). Conclusions ICare pro shows a higher agreement with GAT over a wide range of IOP compared with NCT. The consistency between the three tonometers was similar in a low and normal IOP range. However, NCT shows a greater overestimate of IOP in moderate and higher IOP group. The variability of IOP measurement affected by CCT is NCT > iCare pro > GAT.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document