Clinical Comparison of Contour and Applanation Tonometry and Their Relationship to Pachymetry

Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements With Goldmann Applanation Tonometry, Tonopen XL, and Pascal Dynamic Contour Tonometry in Patients With Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty

PRCIS

IOP measured with Tonopen and DCT was higher than GAT in eyes that underwent DMEK.

PURPOSE/AIM OF THE STUDY

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements measured based on Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), Tonopen XL, and Pascal Dynamic Contour Tonometry (DCT) in patients who had undergone descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and to appraise the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-four eyes (from 34 patients) who underwent DMEK at least 1 month before the study were included. We performed Tonopen XL, GAT, and DCT IOP measurements at 10 min intervals. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between GAT, Tonopen XL, and DCT. Spearman rank correlation was used to calculate the deviation from GAT readings by each device and correlate the readings with the CCT variable.

RESULTS

The mean IOP values with GAT, Tonopen XL, and DCT were 14.9±5.8, 16.2±5.5, and 19.2±5.0, respectively. Statistically significant differences between GAT and Tonopen XL and between GAT and DCT were noted ( r =0.942 [0.885-0.971]; P =0.0001 and r =0.942 [0.885-0.971]; P =0.0001, respectively). DCT tended to return a higher IOP relative to GAT and Tonopen XL. CCT and IOP readings obtained by GAT, Tonopen XL, and DCT did not show a statistically significant correlation with each other.

CONCLUSION

IOP as measured with both Tonopen and DCT was found to be higher than GAT in eyes that underwent DMEK surgery although the techniques showed a good correlation. After DMEK surgery, all 3 measurement techniques can be practical in routine postoperative examinations, however it is recommended to measure IOP with the same device during patient follow-up.

Comparison of central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure measured with two different tono/pachymeter devices in non-glaucomatouse children

PURPOSE

The goal of this research is to compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) and the mean central corneal thickness (CCT) values obtained from the measurements with Nidek NT-530P and Canon TX-20P devices with the values obtained by ultrasound pachymetry (UP) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in children.

METHODS

This prospective study was conducted with 119 healthy children. The measurements were repeated three times for each eye. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the correlation between the measurements obtained from different devices. The Bland-Altman plot was used to analyze the agreement between two different devices graphically. The measurements were taken in the same order in all subjects: TX-20P, NT-530P, UP, and GAT.

RESULTS

The mean age of the children was 10.1 ± 3.2 (6-17) years. The mean CCT values for the eyes were 568.90 and 569.68 (TX-20P), 571.44 and 566.37 (NT-530P), 564.77 and 564.67 μm UP, (right and left, respectively). The highest correspondence observed for CCT was between UP and NT-530P devices (ICC, 0.982, the left eye). The mean IOP measurements for Canon TX-20P, NT-530P, and GAT were 16.5 ± 3.2, 16.3 ± 3.2, and 16.8 ± 3.6 mmHg for the right eyes, respectively, while those for the left eyes were 16.6 ± 3.1, 16.2 ± 3.3, and 16.8 ± 3.7 mmHg. The highest correspondence was noted between measurements obtained using GAT and Nidek NT-530P devices (ICC, 0.945, in the left eye).

CONCLUSION

Tono/pachymetry devices in the healthy children are provides significant agreements with the gold standard methods for IOP and CCT measurements.Clinical Trial Registration number: 2016-94.

A clinical method for estimating the modulus of elasticity of the human cornea in vivo

BACKGROUND

To develop a method, using current clinical instrumentation, to estimate the Young's modulus of the human cornea in vivo.

METHODS

Central corneal curvature (CCC), central corneal thickness(CCT), intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured with the Goldmann tonometer (IOPG) and the Pascal Dynamic Corneal Tonometer(PDCT) in one eye of 100 normal young human subjects (21.07 ± 2.94 years) in vivo. The Orssengo and Pye algorithm was used to calculate the Young's modulus of the corneas of these subjects.

RESULTS

The Young's modulus(E) of the corneas of the subjects using the PDCT and IOPG results (Ecalc) was 0.25 ± 0.10MPa, and without the PDCT results (Eiopg) was 0.29 ± 0.06MPa. The difference in these results is due to the difference in tonometry results between the two instruments, as the mean PDCT result for the subjects was 16.89 ± 2.49mmHg and the IOPG result 15.06 ± 2.71mmHg. E was affected by the CCC of the subjects but more particularly by the CCT and IOP measurements. Corneal stiffness results are also presented.

CONCLUSION

Two methods have been developed to estimate the Young's modulus of the human cornea in vivo using current clinical instrumentation. One method (Ecalc) is applicable to the general corneal condition, and Eiopg to the normal cornea, and these results can be used to calculate corneal stiffness.

Ex-vivo experimental validation of biomechanically-corrected intraocular pressure measurements on human eyes using the CorVis ST

The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of the Corvis ST (Oculus; Wetzlar, Germany) biomechanical correction algorithm (bIOP) in determining intraocular pressure (IOP) using experiments on ex-vivo human eyes. Five ex-vivo human ocular globes (age 69 ± 3 years) were obtained and tested within 3-5 days post mortem. Using a custom-built inflation rig, the internal pressure of the eyes was controlled mechanically and measured using the CorVis ST (CVS-IOP). The CVS-IOP measurements were then corrected to produce bIOP, which was developed for being less affected by variations in corneal biomechanical parameters, including tissue thickness and material properties. True IOP (IOPt) was defined as the pressure inside of the globe as monitored using a fixed pressure transducer. Statistical analyses were performed to assess the accuracy of both CVS-IOP and bIOP, and their correlation with corneal thickness. While no significant differences were found between bIOP and IOP_t (0.3 ± 1.6 mmHg, P = 0.989) using ANOVA and Bonferroni Post-Hoc test, the differences between CVS-IOP and IOPt were significant (7.5 ± 3.2 mmHg, P < 0.001). Similarly, bIOP exhibited no significant correlation with central corneal thickness (p = 0.756), whereas CVS-IOP was significantly correlated with the thickness (p < 0.001). The bIOP correction has been successful in providing close estimates of true IOP in ex-vivo tests conducted on human donor eye globes, and in reducing association with the cornea's thickness.

Citius, Altius, Fortius: Agreement between Perkins and Dynamic Contour Tonometry (Pascal) and the Impact of Altitude

Introduction

To ascertain differences in intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement and their repeatability between dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and Goldmann/Perkins applanation tonometry (GAT) at two different atmospheric pressures.

Materials and methods

Forty-one eyes of 41 healthy consenting subjects were enrolled for this observational, cross-sectional study. Pachymetry and IOP measurements with DCT and GAT for both eyes of each subject at Acapulco (0 m from sea level) and at Mexico City (2,234 m from sea level) were done by the same observer. The IOP was compared between tonometers at each of the altitudes, and also for repeatability of each tonometer at different altitudes. Pearson's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess reliability of measurements and their differences at the two altitudes.

Results

The mean age of patients was 41.7 (28-66 years); 22 were females. Mean IOP with DCT was 16.1 ± 2.2 mm Hg at sea level and 15.9 ± 2.1 mm Hg at 2,234 m above sea level, not a significant difference. Mean GAT IOP at the two altitudes was 13.1 ± 1.8 and 11.5 ± 1.7 mm Hg respectively, a statistically sig -nificant difference. In contrast, central corneal thickness (CCT) was not significantly changed (548.3 to 549.4 μm, p = 0.496).

Conclusion

Repeatability of single-observer measurements with GAT remains clinically acceptable, but not at different altitudes. The DCT seems to more consistently measure a similar IOP at different altitudes in the same subjects. The two tonometers may not be used interchangeably in the serial follow-up of patients at any of the altitudes.How to cite this article: Albis-Donado O, Bhartiya S, Gil-Reyes M, Casale-Vargas G, Arreguin-Rebollar N, Kahook MY. Citius, Altius, Fortius: Agreement between Perkins and Dynamic Contour Tonometry (Pascal) and the Impact of Altitude. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2018;12(1):40-44.

Role of Central Corneal Thickness on Baseline Parameters and Progression of Visual Fields in Open Angle Glaucoma

Purpose

To evaluate the relationship of central corneal thickness (CCT) to baseline visual field parameters and visual field progression in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).

Methods

Charts of consecutive patients with POAG were reviewed to obtain visual field data. Visual field was measured by standard threshold static perimetry. Variables analyzed included mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD).

Results

A total of 121 eyes examined over 4 years were evaluated. A significant negative relationship between CCT and PSD (correlation coefficient: −0.02, p<0.05) was found. Analyses comparing CCT to change in PSD and MD (visual field progression) were statistically not significant.

Conclusions

Patients with thinner corneas initially present with a greater visual field defect, indicating that thin corneas may contribute to advanced glaucomatous damage at the time of diagnosis. However, CCT does not seem to be a significant risk factor for progression of the disease.

Comparison of central corneal thickness with four different optical devices

BACKGROUND

To compare the consistency between the average scores of the contact central corneal thickness measurements from ultrasound pachymetry devices still gold standard, such as iPac^® and Echoscan US-500, and noncontact measurements via Pentacam HR and Sirius topography.

METHODS

This prospective study, subsequently admitted to the ophthalmology department, 76 healthy individuals were performed. The measurements were repeated three times for each eye, and average scores were statistically analyzed on the same day and almost at the same time. While measuring the eyes, Pentacam HR, Sirius topography, iPac^®, and Echoscan US-500 were used, respectively. The inter-rater agreement of measurements from the devices was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient, and 95% Confidence Interval and p values demonstrating statistically significance were also presented. In the graphical assessment of the agreement, the Bland-Altman graph was used.

RESULTS

Among 76 study participants, 43 (56.6%) were composed of women, and age level was 38.6 ± 12.5 years, ranging between 18 and 69. It was observed that the highest agreement was between the measurements obtained from Echoscan US-500 and iPac^® devices, but the agreement between the measurements of different devices was higher than 0.90. Bland-Altman graphics were also investigated; the results of four different devices were seen to be consistent with one another.

CONCLUSIONS

Therefore, the devices we compared in the study can be used as alternatives to one another due to the higher consistency between CCT measurements provided with through UP devices of Echoscan US-500 and iPac^®, and Pentacam HR and Sirius topography devices.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

2016/112.

Correlation Between Dynamic Contour Tonometry, Uncorrected and Corrected Goldmann Applanation Tonometry, and Stage of Glaucoma

Importance

Accurate determination of intraocular pressure (IOP) is crucial for the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Objective clinical evaluation of the correction equations for Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) is lacking.

Objectives

To investigate the difference between corrected and conventional GAT and Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) measurements, as well as the correlation between discordant IOP values and stage of glaucoma.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cross-sectional case series was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Zurich, and Talacker Eye Center between July 1, 2011, and May 31, 2016, among 112 white patients with glaucoma.

Interventions

Intraocular pressure measurements were performed with GAT and DCT in a randomized order. Goldmann applanation tonometry measurements were modified with 5 correction equations.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was degree of concordance between corrected or uncorrected GAT and DCT measurements. The secondary end point was association between discordant IOP measurements and the stage of glaucoma, as assessed by the Glaucoma Severity Score.

Results

Among the 112 patients (67 women and 45 men; mean [SD] age, 66.3 [13.1] years), 63 of the eyes in the study (56.3%) were left eyes and 85 patients (75.9%) were taking ocular antihypertensive medications. Mean (SD) IOP was 20.3 (4.5) mm Hg (95% CI, 19.4-21.1) as measured by DCT and 17.0 [4.1] mm Hg (95% CI, 16.3-17.8) as measured by GAT. The mean (SD) discordance between DCT and GAT measurements was -3.3 (2.0) mm Hg (95% CI, 2.9-3.6). The 5 corrected GAT values ranged from -2.7 to -5.4 mm Hg compared with DCT. The mean (SD) result of the Dresdner correction formula (17.6 [4.1] mm Hg) was closer to the DCT measurement than the original GAT measurement. The mean (SD) Glaucoma Severity Score was 4.7 (3.4) (95% CI, 4.1-5.4). The uncorrected discordance IOPDCT - IOPGAT showed a positive correlation with the Glaucoma Severity Score (rs = 0.33; P < .001) and a negative correlation with central corneal thickness (rs = -0.22; P = .02).

Conclusions and Relevance

In comparison with DCT measurements, these data suggest that GAT values are significantly discordant in eyes with thin corneas and advanced glaucoma. Application of GAT-based correction formulas involves a possible risk of creating an even greater number of unpredictable measurement errors. Hence, we advise with caution, especially pertaining to eyes with thin corneas, to not place reliance on GAT readings, and abandon any correction formula.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01474070.

Comparison of corneal biomechanical properties in normal tension glaucoma patients with different visual field progression speed

AIM

To compare the corneal biomechanical properties difference by ocular response analyzer (ORA) in normal tension glaucoma (NTG) patients with different visual field (VF) progression speed.

METHODS

NTG patients with well-controlled Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) who routinely consulted Kitasato University Hospital Glaucoma Department between January 2010 and February 2014 were enrolled. GAT and ORA parameters including corneal compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc), Goldmann estimated intraocular pressure (IOPg), corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF) were recorded. VF was tested by Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA)-standard 30-2 fields. All patients underwent VF measurement regularly and GAT did not exceed 15 mm Hg at any time during the 3y follow up. Patients were divided into four groups according to VF change over 3y, and ORA findings were compared between the upper 25(th) percentile group (slow progression group) and the lower 25(th) percentile group (rapid progression group).

RESULTS

Eighty-two eyes of 56 patients were studied. There were 21 eyes (21 patients) each in rapid and slow progression groups respectively. GAT, IOPcc, IOPg, CH, CRF were 12.1±1.4 mm Hg, 15.8±1.8 mm Hg, 12.8±2.0 mm Hg, 8.4±1.1 mm Hg, 7.9±1.3 mm Hg respectively in rapid progression group and 11.5±1.3 mm Hg, 13.5±2.1 mm Hg, 11.2±1.6 mm Hg, 9.3±1.1 mm Hg, 8.2±0.9 mm Hg respectively in slow progression group (P=0.214, <0.001, 0.007, 0.017, 0.413, respectively). In bivariate correlation analysis, IOPcc, IOPcc-GAT and CH were significant correlated with mΔMD (r=-0.292, -0.312, 0.228 respectively, P=0.008, 0.004, 0.039 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Relatively rapid VF progression occurred in NTG patients whose IOPcc are rather high, CH are rather low and the difference between IOPcc and GAT are relatively large. Higher IOPcc and lower CH are associated with VF progression in NTG patients. This study suggests that GAT measures might underestimate the IOP in such patients.

Detecting IOP Fluctuations in Glaucoma Patients

Lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) remains the guiding principle of glaucoma management. Although IOP is the only treatable risk factor, its 24-hour behavior is poorly understood. Current glaucoma management usually relies on single IOP measurements during clinic hours, even though IOP is a dynamic parameter with rhythms dependent on individual patients. It has further been shown that most glaucoma patients have their highest IOP measurements outside clinic hours. The fact that these IOP peaks go largely undetected may explain why certain patients progress in their disease despite treatment. Nevertheless, single IOP measurements have determined all major clinical guidelines regarding glaucoma treatment. Other potentially informative parameters, such as fluctuations in IOP and peak IOP, have been neglected, and effects of IOP-lowering interventions on such measures are largely unknown. Continuous 24-hour IOP monitoring has been an interest for more than 50 years, but only recent technological advances have provided clinicians with a device for such an endeavor. This review discusses current uses and shortcomings of current measurement techniques, and provides an overview on current and future methods for 24-hour IOP assessment. It may be possible to incorporate continuous IOP monitoring into clinical practice, potentially to reduce glaucoma-related vision loss.

Which tonometry in eyes with keratoconus?

AIMS

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with Goldmann applanation tonometery (GAT), dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), tonopen (TP), and ocular response analyzer (ORA), and to determine the influence of Amsler grade and central corneal thickness (CCT) on the IOP readings in eyes with keratoconus that are classified into four groups according to the Amsler-Krumeich classification.

METHODS

All eyes with keratoconus were separated into four groups using Amsler-Krumeich classification for keratoconus. IOP was measured in 202 eyes of 202 patients with keratoconus using GAT, DCT, TP, and ORA.

RESULTS

The IOP differences revealed no significant difference among the Amsler degree in the DCT and corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc) measurements (P>0.05 for all). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of IOP differences between GAT and IOPcc (P>0.05), TP and Goldmann-correlated measure of IOP (IOPg; P>0.05) in the Amsler I, while the IOP measurements revealed significant difference among the measurements of the four different tonometers in the Amsler II, Amsler III, and Amsler IV (P<0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant association between DCT IOP or IOPcc and CCT in eyes with keratoconus; no statistically significant difference was found between keratoconus stages and the control group in terms of the IOP analyzed with these two techniques. These two techniques may be the most stable in the measurement of IOP in different keratoconus stages. However, no IOP technique can be used interchangeably with other techniques in the follow-up of keratoconus patients.

Fundamentals and Advances in Tonometry

According to the World Health Organization, glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. Although intraocular pressure (IOP) is not considered any more to be a defining feature of the disease, its lowering remains the only treatment option for glaucoma. Therefore, accurate and precise measurement of IOP is the cornerstone of glaucoma. Intraocular pressure is a highly dynamic physiological parameter with individual circadian rhythms. The main limitation of current tonometry methods remains the static and mostly office-based nature of their measurements. This review provides a brief historical overview on tonometry and discusses current tonometry instruments. In recent years, approaches to 24-hour IOP monitoring have been introduced, and there is hope that they may become part of routine clinical management in the future.

Correlation analysis between central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure in juveniles in Northern China: the Jinan city eye study

Purpose

To determine the distributions and relation of central corneal thickness (CCT) and intraocular pressure (IOP) by NT-530P in Chinese juveniles, and the effect of gender, age, height, weight and refractive errors on the CTT and IOP.

Methods

CCT and IOP of 982 eyes in 514 juveniles aged from 7 to 18 years were measured with NT-530P. Multi-linear regression and ANOVA analysis were used to analyze the relation of CCT and IOP, and the effect of gender, age, height, weight, refractive condition on CCT and IOP respectively.

Results

The mean CCT and IOP were 554.19±35.46 µm and 15.31±2.57 mmHg. There were significant correlations between the CCT and IOP values. Linear regression analysis revealed a positive correlation between CCT and IOP (r = 0.44, P<0.05). Linear regression equation: IOP = −2.35+0.032CCT, which means the IOP will increase 0.32 mm Hg for every 10-µm increase in CCT. The mean of Corrected IOP (CIOP) was 15.32±2.38 mmHg and had no relation with CCT. There was a negative correlation between refraction degree and CCT (P<0.05), but no correlation between refraction degree and IOP. Multi-linear regression model revealed that the height, weight, age and gender have no effect on the distribution of CCT and IOP respectively.

Conclusions

There is a 0.32 mmHg increase in IOP for every 10-µm increase in CCT. The height, weight, age and gender has no effect on the distribution of CCT and IOP. CCT will become thinner with myopia diopters increases in juveniles. The measurement of CCT is helpful in evaluating the actual IOP correctly.

Intraocular pressure measured with Goldmann, noncontact, Schiøtz, and dynamic contour tonometry after DSEK

PURPOSE

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements with various tonometers after Descemet stripping with endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) and to measure the change in IOP during the follow-up period.

METHODS

A total of 28 eyes of 28 patients having undergone DSEK for bullous keratopathy by a single surgeon from June 2008 to November 2011 were enrolled in this study. IOP values, which were measured with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), noncontact tonometry (NCT), Schiøtz indentation tonometry (SIT), and dynamic contour tonometry, and central corneal thickness values were reviewed and analyzed up to 3 years after DSEK (range, 1 months-3 years).

RESULTS

Different tonometers measured the IOP after DSEK differently. NCT showed the lowest IOP values, although GAT and NCT showed the smallest intertonometry difference. SIT showed extreme variation in IOP measurements. The dynamic contour tonometry values were higher than those of NCT or GAT. Central corneal thickness did not correlate with any of the IOP measurements. Only 2 episodes of IOP elevation greater than 30 mm Hg were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

IOP measured with NCT or GAT may be lower than the real IOP after DSEK. SIT is not a reliable tonometry measurement after DSEK. Additional IOP measurements using different methods and consideration of other clinical signs may be the best method for ocular evaluation after DSEK.

Repeatability of intraocular pressure measurements with Icare PRO rebound, Tono-Pen AVIA, and Goldmann tonometers in sitting and reclining positions

BACKGROUND

Icare PRO (ICP) is a new Rebound tonometer that is able to measure intraocular pressure (IOP) in both sitting and reclining positions. In this study, the gold standard Goldmann tonometer (GAT) was compared to ICP and Tono-Pen AVIA (TPA). Hypothesis was that repeatability of GAT is superior to ICP and TPA.

METHODS

36 eyes of 36 healthy caucasian individuals, 13 male and 26 females, 17 right and 19 left eyes have been included in this prospective, randomized, cross-sectional study. The study was conducted at a single site (Dept. of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland). Primary outcome measures were Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficients of variation (COV) and test-retest repeatability as visualized by Bland-Altman analysis. Secondary outcome measures were IOP in sitting (GAT, ICP and TPA) and in reclining (ICP and TPA) position.

RESULTS

Mean IOP measured by GAT was 14.9 ± 3.5 mmHg. Mean IOP measured by ICP was 15.6 ± 3.1 mmHg (with TPA 14.8 ± 2.7 mmHg) in sitting and 16.5 ± 3.5 mmHg (with TPA 17.0 ± 3.0 mmHg) in reclining positions. COVs ranged from 2.9% (GAT) to 6.9% (ICP reclining) and ICCs from 0.819 (ICP reclining) to 0.972 (GAT).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeatability is good with all three devices. GAT has higher repeatability compared to the two tested hand-held devices with lowest COVs and highest ICCs. IOP was higher in the reclining compared to the sitting position.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered to the Clinical Trials Register of the US National Institute of Health, NCT01325324.

Comparison of resource utilization in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma between two cities in Finland: is more better?

INTRODUCTION

Glaucoma is a progressive optic neuropathy associated with neural rim loss of the optic disc and the retinal nerve fibre layer typically causing visual field (VF) deterioration. Generally, glaucomatous lesions in the eye and in the visual field progress slowly over the years. In population-based cross-sectional studies, the percentage of unilateral or bilateral visual impairment varied between 3-12%. In screening studies, 0.03-2.4% of patients have been found to suffer visual impairment. Glaucoma has previously been associated with substantial healthcare costs and resource consumption attributable to the treatment of the disease. The disease also causes reduction in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

This study compares patients with diagnosed open-angle glaucoma from two geographically different regions in Finland. A total of 168 patients were examined, 85 subjects from an area with higher per patient treatment costs (Oulu) and 83 patients from a region with lower per patient treatment costs (Turku). All patients had a history of continuous glaucoma medication use for a period of 11 years. For each patient, the total direct costs from glaucoma treatment were calculated and the total amount of resource consumption was determined from registries and patient records. Each patient underwent a clinical examination with visual field assessment and fundus photography. These data were used to determine the current stage of disease for each patient. Health-related quality of life questionnaire (15D) was used in determining each patient's subjective HRQoL score.

RESULTS

When applying the current diagnostic criteria for open-angle glaucoma, a total of 40% of patients did not to display any structural or functional damage suggesting glaucoma after 11 years of continuous medical treatment and follow-up. Patients with higher glaucoma stage (worse disease) were found to have statistically higher treatment costs compared with those at lower disease stages. Resource consumption was also greater in the patients in higher glaucoma stage. Patients in the Oulu district consumed more resources, and glaucoma treatment was more expensive than in the Turku area. The total treatment cost in Oulu and Turku was 6010 € and 4452 €, respectively, for the whole 11-year period. There was no statistically significant difference in quality-of-life scores between the two areas. No difference was noted between the higher-spending and lower-spending areas in this respect. However, when the population was analysed as a whole, patients with higher glaucoma stage were found to have lower vision-based 15D scores compared with those at lower disease stages. This observation was made also at both districts independently.

CONCLUSIONS

Major cost source in open-angle glaucoma treatment is medication, up to 74% of annual costs. In addition, it seems that higher resource consumption and higher treatment costs do not increase the patients' HRQoL as assessed by the 15D instrument.

Comparison of Goldmann Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry in Normal and Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty Eyes

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare intraocular pressures (IOP) measured by dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) with Goldmann tonometry (GAT) in Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) eyes. The agreeability between the 2 established methods and their relation to central corneal thickness (CCT) was also studied.

DESIGN

A comparative case series.

METHODS

Forty-six eyes of DSEK were enrolled at least 3 months after the procedure. Thirty-five other eyes of the same patient cohort served as control. Intraocular pressures were measured by DCT and GAT by 2 different examiners in a randomized manner. Central corneal thickness was measured by ultrasonic pachymetry. Statistical analysis was used for the calculation of means, SD, coefficient of determination, linear regression, and Bland and Altman plot. Statistical significance was considered as P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Mean CCT was 624.49 μm and 518.41 μm in DSEK and control eyes, respectively. Mean IOP by GAT and DCT, respectively, was 19.4 and 21.5 mm Hg in DSEK eyes and 15.12 and 17.6 mm Hg in controls. Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty eyes showed universally higher IOP by either method in comparison with normal controls. Dynamic contour tonometry reading was significantly higher than GAT in both (P < 0.05) groups. The correlation between IOP and CCT was not significant in DSEK eyes (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A higher baseline IOP is to be expected in DSEK eyes, which is independent of corneal thickness. Both GAT and DCT can be used as a standard method to measure IOP in DSEK eyes, but their readings cannot be used interchangeably.

Comparison of Goldmann applanation and dynamic contour tonometry in a population of Mexican open-angle glaucoma patients

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with Goldmann applanation (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in a Mexican population. 40 glaucoma patients were included in this cross-sectional observational cohort study. IOP measurements were performed in the following order: DCT, ultrasonic pachymetry and GAT, with a 5-minute difference between each measurement, between 8 am and 2 pm. Only DCT measurements of good quality (Q ≤ 3) were accepted. GAT measurements were made three times with the same Goldmann tonometer, previously checked for calibration errors, and the mean was used for statistical purposes. The IOP (mean [standard deviation], 95 % confidence interval [CI]) measured with the Goldmann tonometer (13.2 [2.4], 12.4-14.0 mmHg) was significantly lower than that obtained with the DCT (18.4 [3.3], 17.0-19.2 mmHg), p < 0.0001. Pearson's correlation coefficients between CCT and IOP measured with GAT and DCT were (r = 0.24, 95 % CI = 0.07-0.52, p = 0.133) and (r = 0.13, 95 % CI = -0.19 to 0.43, p = 0.412), respectively. The concordance correlation coefficient between GAT and DCT was r c = 0.3, 95 % CI = 0.17-0.41). DCT seems to overestimate the IOP as compared to GAT. Additionally, although there was a good correlation between the IOP measurements assessed with either GAT or DCT, the agreement was poor.

Association of ocular hypotensive medication types with dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry measurements in a glaucoma and ocular hypertensive population

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between different intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications and IOP measurements by dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in a glaucoma and ocular hypertensive population.

METHODS

In a prospective, observational case series study, 410 eyes from 410 consecutive patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT), were enrolled. All eyes included in the study received unaltered ocular hypotensive medication for at least 6 months before IOP measurement. All eyes underwent 2 GAT and 3 DCT measurements, and their means were used for the analysis.

RESULTS

DCT-GAT IOP difference (ΔIOP) did not differ statistically significantly (P=0.49) between OAG and OHT group yielding a mean±SD of 4.26±2.02 mmHg and 4.41±2.25 mmHg, respectively. The number of IOP-lowering agents did not have any statistically significant influence on ΔIOP (p=0.177), DCT (P=0.28) and GAT (P=0.13) measurements. A statistically higher ΔIOP was revealed in monotherapy patients receiving Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors (CAIs) (ΔIOP=5.75 mmHg) in comparison to patients receiving Prostaglandin Analogs (ΔIOP=4.09 mm Hg) or beta Blockers (ΔIOP=3.78 mmHg) as single topical therapy (F=4.373, P=0.005). Eyes treated with CAIs as a part of the ocular hypotensive therapy yielded a significantly greater ΔIOP (P=0.0035) than those without CAIs in the therapeutic schema.

CONCLUSIONS

The difference between DCT and GAT IOP measurements is found to be statistically significantly higher in patients receiving CAIs either as monotherapy or as a part of a combined ocular hypotensive treatment, while DCT and GAT readings remain unaffected. The type of diagnosis and the number of ocular hypotensive medications had no statistically significant influence on ΔIOP.

Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in keratoconus

PURPOSE

We performed a comparative study using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) to measure intraocular pressure (IOP) in eyes with keratoconus.

METHODS

IOP was measured in 114 eyes of 75 patients with keratoconus (51 men and 24 women; mean age, 36.1 ± 11.2 years) using GAT and DCT in randomized order. Central corneal thickness (CCT), minimal corneal thickness (MCT), and corneal topography were recorded using the Pentacam. Four groups according to Amsler's keratoconus classification were composed and analyzed for significant differences of CCT, MCT, GAT, and DCT results.

RESULTS

Mean CCT in the 114 keratoconus eyes was 481.1 ± 46.2 μm (range, 334-601 μm). Mean MCT was 453.3 ± 56.3 μm (range, 239-573 μm). Mean IOP measured using GAT was 13.1 ± 2.9 mm Hg, whereas mean IOP measured using DCT was 14.8 ± 2.6 mm Hg. Neither the results for GAT nor those for DCT showed a significant correlation with CCT (Pearson correlation: P < 0.05). Multifactorial analysis revealed that CCT and MCT, but not GAT and DCT, results were significantly different in corneas of varying curvatures.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that DCT measures IOP higher than GAT in eyes with keratoconus. In keratoconus, both methods seem to be independent of CCT and therefore are equally, but not interchangeably, applicable when monitoring IOP. Further analysis revealed that CCT and MCT are significantly different in corneas of varying Amsler grade.

Comparison between Tonopachy and other tonometric and pachymetric devices

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurement by Tonopachy to that by Pentacam and ultrasound pachymetry, and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement to that by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The reproducibility of CCT and IOP measurements by Tonopachy was also evaluated.

METHODS

In 104 eyes of 104 patients, CCT was measured by Tonopachy, Pentacam, and ultrasound pachymetry, and IOP was measured by Tonopachy and GAT. Each CCT and IOP measurement was compared using Pearson correlation, repeated measures analysis of variance, and Bland-Altman plots. In 30 subjects, CCT and IOP measurements by Tonopachy were repeated to evaluate intrasession and intraobserver variability.

RESULTS

Both CCT and IOP measurements were highly correlated among all instruments used in this study. CCT measurements by three pachymeters were statistically different (p<0.0001). CCT measured by ultrasound pachymetry was lowest (541.7 ± 30.6 μm) whereas those by Tonopachy and Pentacam showed no difference (557.3 ± 34.3 and 558.0 ± 33.7 μm, respectively). Tonopachy overestimated CCT by 13.9 μm when compared with ultrasound pachymetry. There was a statistically significant difference between IOP measurements by two tonometers (p<0.0001); IOP measurement was higher by Tonopachy than by GAT (13.9 ± 4.2 and 12.5 ± 3.2 mm Hg, respectively). Tonopachy overestimated IOP measurements by 1.2 mm Hg compared with GAT. Intersession agreements for IOP and CCT measurements by Tonopachy were excellent (intraclass correlation, 0.902 and 0.962, respectively) with 95% limits of agreement ranging from -1.4 to 2.2 mm Hg and from -12.9 to 12.1 μm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CCT and IOP measurements obtained by Tonopachy were reproducible and showed close agreement with ultrasound pachymetry and Pentacam, and GAT, careful attention should be paid when comparing Tonopachy CCT measurement to ultrasound pachymetry or its IOP measurement to GAT as the values may not be interchangeable. Tonopachy is a reliable instrument for evaluating CCT and IOP.

The effect of thin, thick, and normal corneas on Goldmann intraocular pressure measurements and correction formulae in individual eyes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the usefulness of the central corneal thickness (CCT)-based correction formulae for stratified CCT groups, with intraocular pressure (IOP) from the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (PDCT) as the reference standard.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-nine patients attending a specialist glaucoma practice and a mixture of normal subjects and subjects with confirmed glaucomatous optic neuropathy.

METHODS

Intraocular pressure was measured using PDCT, Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), and the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA; Reichert Corp, Buffalo, NY). The GAT readings were obtained before automated readings and were adjusted for CCT using 4 different correction formulae. Discrepancies between GAT and CCT-corrected GAT readings were evaluated after stratification into thin, intermediate, and thick CCT groups. The IOP measurements from GAT, the ORA, and CCT-adjusted IOP were compared against PDCT IOP measurements using Bland-Altman analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean, 95% limits of agreement, and proportion of patients with IOP difference of 20% or more between PDCT IOP and each of GAT IOP, Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg), corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc), and adjusted IOP using CCT-based correction formulae.

RESULTS

Average PDCT IOP values were higher than GAT, IOPg, IOPcc, and CCT-adjusted IOP. The GAT IOP readings demonstrated poor agreement with PDCT IOP (95% limits of agreement, ± 4.7 mmHg); however, IOPg, IOPcc, and adjustment of GAT IOP with CCT-based formulae resulted in even poorer agreement (range of 95% limits of agreement, ± 5.1 to 6.7 mmHg). If PDCT was used as the reference standard, there was a 26% to 39% risk of making an erroneous IOP adjustment of magnitude of 20% or more at all levels of CCT. This risk was greatest in the patients with thicker corneas (CCT, ≥568 μm).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusting IOP using CCT-based formulae resulted in poorer agreement with PDCT IOP when compared with unadjusted G AT IOP. If PDCT is the closest measure we have to intracameral IOP, there is a risk of creating clinically significant error after adjustment of GAT IOP with CCT-based correction formulae, especially in thicker corneas. This study suggests that although CCT may be useful in population analyses, CCT-based correction formulae should not be applied to individuals.

Comparison of Goldmann and Pascal tonometry in relation to corneal hysteresis and central corneal thickness in nonglaucomatous eyes

Objective:

To compare measurements obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), and to study their relationship to corneal thickness and biomechanical properties in nonglaucomatous eyes.

Methods:

This is a prospective and randomized study of 200 eyes from 200 non-glaucomatous subjects who underwent intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements by GAT and DCT. The two methods were compared and assessed for agreement by means of the Bland–Altman plot. Central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal hysteresis (CH) were obtained by ultrasound pachymeter and Ocular Response Analyzer, respectively. The effect of CH and CCT was correlated with the DCT/GAT IOP differences.

Results:

Mean age was 57.4 ± 14.7 years (range 24–82 years). Mean IOP measurements obtained were 16.7 ± 3.2 mmHg by GAT and 19.4 ± 3.3 mmHg by DCT. DCT showed a statistically significant higher mean IOP (2.7 ± 1.9 mmHg, P < 0.001) compared with GAT. Mean CCT and CH were 546.5 ± 40 μm and 10.85 ± 2.0 mmHg, respectively. The differences in IOP (DCT – GAT) were significantly correlated with CCT and CH (Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = −0.517 and −0.355, P < 0.0001, respectively). The difference between the two correlation coefficients was statistically significant (P < 0.05, Z-statistic). According to the Bland–Altman plot, the results of the two methods were clinically different.

Conclusion:

Significantly higher IOP readings were obtained by DCT than by GAT in nonglaucomatous subjects. The IOP differences between the two methods were associated with CCT and CH, suggesting that DCT was less dependent on corneal parameters. Each method provides clinically different IOP values, indicating that DCT and GAT should not be used interchangeably.

Poor utility of intraocular pressure correction formulae in individual glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients

BACKGROUND

To compare Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) measurements with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) readings after adjustment with correction formulae in a population of Caucasian glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional case series in a specialist glaucoma practice.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive glaucoma and glaucoma suspect Caucasian patients.

METHODS

Case notes review of the GAT and DCT intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements from patients who presented on a non-acute basis over a 30-month period. The GAT measurement was adjusted with six different correction formulae. Agreement between GAT IOP, adjusted GAT IOP and DCT IOP was evaluated with the Bland-Altman analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Agreement between GAT IOP (both unadjusted and adjusted) and DCT IOP.

RESULTS

Data from 200 patients with a mean age of 58.4 (±12.7) years were analysed. The mean central corneal thickness was 554.8 (±36.9) µm and the mean corneal hysteresis was 9.8 (±1.9) mm Hg. Sixty five (32.5%) had confirmed glaucomatous optic neuropathy. GAT IOP demonstrated poor agreement with DCT IOP. GAT IOP was on average 2.1 mm Hg less than DCT IOP. None of the six correction formulae resulted in improved agreement with DCT IOP. General linear model analysis found no statistically significant measurement differences between the glaucoma and glaucoma suspect groups.

CONCLUSIONS

GAT demonstrated poor agreement with DCT, and agreement did not improve after adjustment with correction formulae. Our results suggest that correction formulae for GAT IOP are unsuitable to clinically approximate 'true' IOP in Caucasian glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients.

A history of intraocular pressure and its measurement

Doctors have not always associated elevated intraocular pressure with the vision loss from glaucoma. Although several individuals appear to have noted firmness of the eye in this condition as far back as the 10th century, elevated intraocular pressure was not routinely assessed until the latter part of the 19th century. von Graefe developed the first instrument for measuring intraocular pressure in 1865. The first reasonably accurate instrument was the Maklakoff applanation tonometer of the late 19th century; it was in widespread use throughout Eastern Europe until relatively recently. Schiötz developed an indentation tonometer that was widely used throughout the world during the first two thirds of the 20th century. Goldmann's applanation tonometer of 1950 began the era of truly accurate intraocular pressure measurement. It is still the most widely used tonometer in the world. Other devices such as the McKay-Marg tonometer (or its offspring the Tono-Pen), the pneumatonometer, and airpuff applanation tonometers are gaining adherents. The dynamic contour tonometer is the first totally new concept in tonometry in over 100 years. It is probably the most accurate of all the tonometers and is relatively independent of corneal biomechanical properties unlike its predecessors. Transpalpebral tonometers are attractive as they do not require topical anesthesia; however, they add the biomechanical properties of the eyelid to the list of potential errors and have not proven very accurate. The future should, hopefully, bring tonometers that can give diurnal or even longer indications of intraocular pressure variation. Although intraocular pressure elevation (or its absence) no longer can be counted on for diagnostic purposes, the role of intraocular pressure in the management of glaucomatous optic neuropathy remains critical.

Measuring accurate IOPs: Does correction factor help or hurt?

Purpose:

To evaluate if using the Ehlers correction factor on the intraocular pressure (IOP) measured using the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) improves its agreement with the PASCAL dynamic contour tonometer (DCT).

Patients and methods:

A total of 120 eyes of 120 individuals were examined. Participants underwent IOP measurement with both the DCT and the GAT and central corneal thickness measurement. The Ehlers correction factor was applied on the GAT IOP measurements to calculate Ehlers-corrected GAT IOP. The agreement between the DCT and GAT, and DCT and Ehlers-corrected GAT IOP was analyzed. The analyses were repeated by stratifying the data by race.

Results:

The mean IOP of the GAT, DCT, and the Ehlers-corrected GAT was 15.30, 16.78, and 14.68 mmHg, respectively. The agreement as assessed by Bland–Altman plot for the GAT with the DCT and DCT and Ehlers-corrected GAT IOP was +4.1 to −6.9 and +4.15 to −8.25 mmHg, respectively. The results were similar even when stratifying the data by race.

Conclusion:

Using Ehlers correction factor to account for the effect of corneal parameters on the IOP measured by the GAT worsens the agreement with the DCT. This effect remains even when stratifying the data by race.

Repeatability and reproducibility for intraocular pressure measurement by dynamic contour, ocular response analyzer, and goldmann applanation tonometry

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the intraocular pressure measurement variability between Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), and ocular response analyzer (ORA) tonometry.

METHODS

Subjects were prospectively recruited from consecutive Albuquerque VA Medical Center eye clinic patients that were previously diagnosed with ocular hypertension, glaucoma suspect, primary open-angle, or normal pressure glaucoma. Two sets of intraocular pressure measurements (3-4 ORA, 2 DCT, and 2 GAT) were obtained approximately 15 minutes apart. Each set was obtained by 1 of 2 examiners using random examiner sequences. ORA was measured first in both eyes, followed by either DCT or GAT, which were obtained in random order. Repeatability was assessed by examining variability of consecutive measurements by the same examiner, and reproducibility was examined by assessing variability between the first and second measurement sets.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty eyes of 60 subjects were included. Mean age was 64.1+/-9.6 years and 58/60 (97%) were male. Intraobserver repeatability was highest for GAT, followed closely by DCT, and then ORA. Intersession reproducibility was similar for all methods, although a tonographic effect may have corrupted GAT and DCT reproducibility results. We found no repeatability or reproducibility differences between eyes, between examiners, or between measurement sets.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some intermethod variability differences were identified, all 3 methods in this study demonstrated clinically acceptable measurement repeatability and reproducibility. This result, in conjunction with the finding that variability was not different between eyes, examiners, or measurement sets, suggests that DCT and ORA are reliable enough to be clinically useful.

Intraocular pressure measurement precision with the Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometers

OBJECTIVE

To examine the repeatability and reproducibility of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT; Swiss Microtechnology AG, Port, Switzerland), and the Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA; Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Buffalo, NY). A secondary objective was to assess agreement between the devices.

DESIGN

Evaluation of technology.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred participants; a mixture of glaucoma suspects, patients, and control volunteers.

METHODS

The IOP measurements were obtained with the GAT, DCT, and ORA by 2 of 3 experienced clinicians. Keratometry (CC) measurements were made using the IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditech, AG, Jena, Germany). Three ORA corneal compensated IOP (IOPcc) measurements were obtained before the instillation of anesthesia, after which 2 GAT IOP and 3 DCT IOP measurements were obtained in a randomized order. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured using an ultrasound pachymeter. The average ORA corneal response factor (CRF) and the average DCT ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) were determined. Intraobserver variability was calculated by the repeatability coefficient. Interobserver variability (measurement reproducibility) and device agreement were calculated by Bland-Altman analysis (mean difference [bias] and 95% limits of agreement [LoA]). The effect of corneal characteristics (CC, CCT, and CRF) on the IOP measurement differences between tonometers also was determined.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Repeatability and reproducibility of the GAT, DCT, and ORA IOPcc and agreement between tonometers.

RESULTS

The repeatability coefficients for GAT, DCT, and ORA were 2.2, 2.3, and 4.3 mmHg, respectively. The intraobserver variability of ORA measurements was shown to be significantly associated with OPA and to a lesser degree with the quality of ORA waveform scans. The interobserver bias (95% LoA) was -0.8 (+/-3.9) mmHg for GAT -0.2 (+/-2.8) mmHg for DCT and -0.3 (+/-3.9) mmHg for ORA IOPcc. On average, GAT under-read both DCT and ORA IOP measurements by approximately 2 mmHg. The IOP measurement differences were better predicted by CRF than CCT.

CONCLUSIONS

The DCT shows excellent measurement precision, displaying the best repeatability and reproducibility of the 3 tonometers. Corneal stiffness, as defined using CRF, was associated significantly with agreement between devices. The IOP measurements with each device are not interchangeable.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Evaluation of the Perkins handheld applanation tonometer in the measurement of intraocular pressure in dogs and cats

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and to validate the accuracy of the Perkins handheld applanation tonometer in the measurement of IOP in dogs and cats.

ANIMALS

Twenty eyes from 10 dogs and 10 cats immediately after sacrifice were used for the postmortem study and 20 eyes from 10 clinically normal and anesthetized dogs and cats were used for the in vivo study. Both eyes of 20 conscious dogs and cats were also evaluated.

PROCEDURE

Readings of IOP postmortem and in vivo were taken using manometry (measured with a mercury column manometer) and tonometry (measured with a Perkins handheld applanation tonometer). The IOP measurement with Perkins tonometer in anesthetized and conscious dogs and cats was accomplished by instillation of proxymetacaine 0.5% and of 1% fluorescein eye drops.

RESULTS

The correlation coefficient (r(2)) between the manometry and the Perkins tonometer were 0.982 (dogs) and 0.988 (cats), and the corresponding linear regression equation were y = 0.0893x + 0.1105 (dogs) and y = 0.0899x + 0.1145 (cats) in the postmortem study. The mean IOP readings with the Perkins tonometer after calibration curve correction were 14.9 +/- 1.6 mmHg (range 12.2-17.2 mmHg) in conscious dogs, and were 15.1 +/- 1.7 mmHg (range 12.1-18.7 mmHg) in conscious cats.

CONCLUSION

There was an excellent correlation between the IOP values obtained from direct ocular manometry and the Perkinstonometer in dogs and cats. The Perkins handheld tonometer could be in the future a new alternative for the diagnosis of glaucoma in veterinary ophthalmology.

Intraocular pressure measured by dynamic contour tonometer and ocular response analyzer in normal tension glaucoma

BACKGROUND

To investigate intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement values in normal tension glaucoma (NTG) eyes using two different types of tonometer that are supposed to be little affected by corneal biochemical properties.

METHODS

This study included 30 normal eyes of 16 healthy subjects and 30 eyes of 16 patients with NTG. IOP was measured with a Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), a Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and a Reichert ocular response analyzer (ORA) three times each for normal and NTG eyes. The main measures were GAT-IOP, DCT-IOP, corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc), Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg), and central corneal thickness (CCT).

RESULTS

In normal eyes, GAT-IOP was 13.2 +/- 1.4 mmHg; DCT-IOP, 13.0 +/- 1.6 mmHg; IOPcc, 13.6 +/- 2.0 mmHg; and IOPg, 12.4 +/- 2.0 mmHg. Multivariate analysis revealed no significant differences between the four measurements (p = 0.08). CCT was 524.6 +/- 27.3 microns. In NTG eyes, GAT-IOP was 13.1 +/- 1.3 mmHg; DCT-IOP, 13.7 +/- 1.3 mmHg; IOPcc, 15.2 +/- 2.0 mmHg; and IOPg, 12.7 +/- 2.0 mmHg. Multivariate analysis showed significant differences between the four measurements (p < 0.01). Sheffé's test showed that IOPcc was significantly higher than GAT-IOP, DCT-IOP, and IOPg (GAT-IOP vs IOPcc: p < 0.0001; DCT-IOP vs IOPcc: p = 0.01; IOPcc vs IOPg: p < 0.0001). CCT was 515.4 +/- 32.9 microns, with no significant difference between normal and NTG eyes (p = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

We investigated the values of IOP in NTG eyes as measured by the DCT and ORA. IOPcc was significantly greater than GAT-IOP, DCT-IOP and IOPg in NTG eyes, suggesting the possibility that IOP values may be underestimated.

The Reliability of Central Corneal Thickness Measurements by Ultrasound and by Orbscan System in Schoolchildren

PURPOSE

To compare the central corneal thickness measurements obtained by ultrasound (US) pachymetry and the Orbscan II system in healthy schoolchildren.

METHODS

A total of 356 schoolchildren aged 7 to 12 years underwent central cornal thickness (CCT) measurement with Orbscan II and ultrasonic pachymetry. All eyes were examined first with the Orbscan II and then by US pachymetry. The mean of the difference, standard deviation (SD), and 95% limits of agreement, with and without applying the acoustic correction factor, were determined. The differences between the devices in measuring mean CCT were calculated with paired-sample t test. Pearson correlation test was used to determine the correlation between variables. p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Linear regression analysis was used to quantify the correlation between the two methods.

RESULTS

Orbscan II measurements were significantly higher than US pachymetry measurements without applying the manufacturer-recommended acoustic correction factor (0.92) correction (580.39 +/- 37 microm and 562.95 +/- 32 microm, respectively) (p < 0.0001). When this acoustic correction factor was applied, the Orbscan II measurements demonstrated significantly lower results when compared with those of US pachymetry (533.96 +/- 34 microm and 562.95 +/- 32 microm, respectively) (p < 0.0001). The linear regression analysis lines showed approximately 45-degree slope indicating a strong correlation between these methods (US pachymetry = 145.71 + 0.72 x Orbscan II value without acoustic correction factor (microm), r = 0.89, p < 0.0001). There was a high degree of variability in differences between the 2 devices in individual subjects. The range was between 25 to -55 microm without the acoustic correction factor and 67 to -5 microm with the acoustic correction factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Although US pachymetry and Orbscan II demonstrated a strong linear correlation, there was a high degree of variability in differences between the two devices in individual subjects who participated.

Correlation of intraocular pressure measured with goldmann and dynamic contour tonometry in normal and glaucomatous eyes

PURPOSE

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured by both Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in both normal and glaucomatous eyes, and to determine the relationship between these parameters and central corneal thickness (CCT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-seven subjects with primary open-angle glaucoma and 38 normal subjects attended a 12-hour session during which IOP was assessed at 7 time points, every 2 hours, by both GAT and DCT. CCT was also assessed at the same visit. Mean IOP was calculated for each eye of each subject by each method from the 7 diurnal IOP measurements obtained.

RESULTS

Mean IOP was higher when measured by DCT than by GAT in both normal (by 1.1 mm Hg, P<0.0001) and glaucomatous (by 1.6 mm Hg, P<0.0001) eyes. IOP measurements by GAT and DCT were moderately correlated in both normal (r(2)=0.354, P<0.0001) and glaucomatous (r(2)=0.552, P<0.0001) eyes. In normal eyes, there was a weak positive correlation between GAT IOP and CCT (r(2)=0.088, slope=0.022 mm Hg/microm, P=0.009) and no correlation between DCT IOP and CCT (r(2)=0.007, slope=0.005 mm Hg/microm, P=0.468). In glaucomatous eyes, there was no correlation between GAT IOP and CCT (r(2)=0.006, slope=0.007 mm Hg/microm, P=0.473) and a weak inverse correlation between DCT IOP and CCT (r(2)=0.075, slope=-0.021 mm Hg/microm, P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Both GAT and DCT are affected by CCT, albeit in different ways. Normal and glaucomatous eyes exhibit different relationships between CCT and IOP measured by either GAT or DCT. The relationships between CCT and transcorneal IOP measurements are complex and incompletely characterized, which limits the clinical interpretation of GAT and DCT measurements of IOP in both normal and glaucomatous eyes.

Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma practice

PURPOSE

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) readings taken using dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) with IOP readings taken with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in eyes with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

METHODS

The present study included 100 eyes in 100 patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. After pachymetry DCT and GAT were performed. Intraocular pressures as measured with DCT and GAT were compared with one another and with central corneal thickness (CCT).

RESULTS

Mean DCT IOP measurements (20.1 +/- 4.3 mmHg) were significantly (p < 0.001) higher than GAT IOP values (17.9 +/- 4.7 mmHg). The mean difference between DCT and GAT measurements was 2.1 mmHg (range -3.4 to 9.7 mmHg). The difference followed a normal distribution. Measurements made with DCT and GAT correlated significantly with one another (Spearman's rho = 0.761, p < 0.001). Neither GAT nor DCT measurements showed a significant correlation with CCT (537 +/- 39 microm, range 458-656 microm). Multivariate regression analysis has shown that the difference between DCT and GAT is influenced significantly by ocular pulse amplitude (r = -0.334, p = 0.001) and it is not influenced by CCT (r = -0.106, p = 0.292).

CONCLUSIONS

In eyes with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, DCT facilitates suitable and reliable IOP measurements which are in good concordance with GAT readings. Variation in CCT cannot by itself explain the differences in measurements taken with DCT and GAT in a number of eyes.