Clinical performance of non-contact tonometry by Reichert AT550 in glaucomatous patients

Identification of a circulating three-miRNA panel for the diagnosis of primary open angle glaucoma

PURPOSE

Conventional diagnosis of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) needs a combination of ophthalmic examinations. An efficient assay is urgently needed for a timely POAG diagnosis. We aim to explore differential expressions of circulating microRNAs (miRNA) and provide novel miRNA biomarkers for POAG diagnosis.

METHODS

A total of 180 POAG patients and 210 age-related cataract (ARC) patients were enrolled. We collected aqueous humor (AH) and plasma samples from the recruited patients. The expressions of candidate miRNAs were measured using quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction. The diagnostic ability of candidate miRNAs was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

The expressions of miR-21-5p and miR-29b-3p were downregulated significantly in AH and plasma of POAG and miR-24-3p expression was significantly increased in AH and plasma of POAG, comparing with those of ARC. A three-miRNA panel was constructed by a binary logistic regression. And the panel could differentiate between POAG and ARC with an area under the curve of 0.8867 (sensitivity = 78.0%, specificity = 83.3%) in aqueous humor and 0.7547 (sensitivity = 73.8%, specificity = 81.2%) in plasma. Next, we verified the three-miRNA panel working as a potential diagnostic biomarker stable and reliable. At last, we identified related function and regulation pathways in vitro.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we built and identified a circulating three-miRNA panel as a potential diagnostic biomarker for POAG. It may be developed into an efficient assay and help improve the POAG diagnosis in the future.

Evaluation of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure using Corvis ST and comparison of the Corvis ST, noncontact tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma

Purpose

The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of various anatomical structures on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by the Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (Corvis ST), Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), and noncontact tonometer (NCT), as well as to assess the interchangeability among the four types of IOP measurement: IOP-GAT, IOP-NCT, IOP-Corvis, and biomechanically corrected IOP (bIOP-Corvis), with a particular focus on bIOP-Corvis.

Materials and methods

We included 71 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and assessed their IOP measurements obtained with the GAT, NCT, and Corvis ST using a repeated measures ANOVA, a paired t-test with Bonferroni correction, stepwise multiple regression analyses and Bland–Altman plots.

Results

IOP-GAT showed the highest values (13.5 ± 2.1 mmHg [mean ± standard deviation]), followed by IOP-NCT (13.2 ± 2.7 mmHg), IOP-Corvis (10.6 ± 2.8 mmHg), and bIOP-Corvis (10.0 ± 2.3 mmHg). With exceptions of bIOP-Corvis and IOP-GAT, all IOP variations were explained by regression coefficients involving the central corneal thickness. Bland–Altman plots showed a mean difference between IOP-GAT and the other IOP measurements (IOP-Corvis, bIOP-Corvis, and IOP-NCT), which were -2.90, -3.48, and -0.29 mmHg, respectively. The widths of the 95% limits of agreement between all pairs of IOP measurements were greater than 3 mmHg.

Conclusion

IOP values obtained with the Corvis ST, NCT, and GAT were not interchangeable. The bIOP-Corvis measurement corrected for the ocular structure.

Tonometers-which one should I use?

Although several factors are known to play a role in the development and progression of glaucoma, intraocular pressure (IOP) remains the only modifiable risk factor. Medical and surgical treatments for glaucoma both aim to reduce IOP to minimize disease progression. Tonometry is therefore an essential element of the ophthalmological exam. There are several types of tonometers available currently. These range from well-established instruments that have been in clinical use for decades to new devices, which are the result of recent technological advances. The various instruments have advantages and disadvantages that affect their suitability for a given setting, purpose, and patient population. In this review, we aim to describe the most commonly available tonometers today along with their advantages, disadvantages, and applicability.

Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Icare PRO Rebound Tonometer, Tomey FT-1000 Noncontact Tonometer, and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in Healthy Subjects

PURPOSE

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by Icare PRO rebound tonometer (RT), Tomey FT-1000 noncontact tonometer (NCT), and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in healthy subjects, and to investigate the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements.

METHODS

A total of 132 eyes of 66 healthy subjects were included in the study. All IOP measurements were applied in a sitting position and always in the same order (RT, NCT, and GAT). CCT was measured by noncontact anterior segment optical coherence tomography.

RESULTS

The mean CCT was 523.5±31.2 μm. The mean IOPs with GAT, NCT, and RT measurements were 14.56±2.77, 13.42±2.99, 14.18±2.55 mm Hg, respectively. A significantly good agreement was found between RT and GAT measurements (P=0.515). The mean difference between RT and GAT measurements was -0.38 mm Hg. An underestimation was found in NCT measurements compared with GAT ones as defined from paired comparisons (P=0.003). The mean difference between NCT and GAT measurements was -1.14 mm Hg. There was no significant difference between NCT and RT readings (P=0.069). The mean difference between NCT and RT measurements was -0.76 mm Hg. There was a significant correlation between GAT-NCT (r=0.740, P<0.001), GAT-RT (r=0.743, P<0.001), NCT-RT (r=0.729, P<0.001) measurement methods. The increment in measured IOP for a 10 μm increase in CCT was 0.16, 0.33, and 0.18 mm Hg for the GAT, NCT, and RT, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The IOP readings with the new Icare PRO RT showed good correlation with those obtained by GAT. Tomey FT-1000 NCT underestimated the IOP compared with GAT.

Comparison of intraocular pressure measurement with Scheimpflug-based noncontact tonometer with and without hydrogel contact lenses

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine the repeatability of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements made through a soft contact lens (CL) using the Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry in healthy subjects.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, single-center study included one eye of 88 subjects (40 male and 48 female). Only participants without glaucoma or any other ocular pathology were included in this study. Three consecutive IOP measurements by the Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry were performed with and without daily disposable hydrogel CLs (-0.50 DS) (Dailies-nelfilcon A, 69% water, 8.7 mm base curve, 14 mm diameter, center thickness 0.10 mm) by a single operator. To avoid any bias arising from diurnal variation, all measurements were made at a similar time of day (11 am ± 1 h). The repeatability of IOP measurements using the Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry with and without CLs was evaluated using Pearson's correlation analysis. Bland-Altman plotting was used to assess the limits of agreement between the measurements with and without CLs.

RESULTS

The mean (± standard deviation) IOPs with and without CL were 13.80 ± 2.70 and 13.79 ± 2.54 mm of Hg respectively. The mean difference was 0.01 ± 0.16 (95% confidence interval, +1.97 to - 2.00) mm Hg. Statistical analysis via paired t-test showed no statistical difference between the two groups with (P = 0.15). A good correlation was found for IOP measurements with and without CL (r = 0.93, P < 0.001). Good test-retest reliability was found when IOP was measured with and without CL.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between IOP measured with and without CLs by Scheimpflug noncontact tonometry.

Reliability of the non-contact tono-pachymeter Tonopachy NT-530P in healthy eyes

BACKGROUND

Non-contact Tonopachy NT-530P (Nidek Co., LTD) provides intraocular pressure (IOP) and central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements. This study assesses the reliability and repeatability of its IOP measurements in young healthy adult subjects.

METHODS

IOP was determined in the right eye of 64 healthy patients using Tonopachy followed by the Canon TX-10 non-contact and Goldmann applanation (GAT) tonometers. Tonopachy IOP measurements were corrected (Tonopachy-C) or not (Tonopachy-NC) by the instrument for central corneal thickness. Central corneal thickness measurements provided by Tonopachy were also used to correlate (Pearson's coefficient) central corneal thickness with the GAT and Canon TX-10 IOPs. Repeatability of Tonopachy and GAT was assessed in the right eye of 31 subjects in two separate sessions one week apart. Differences between pairs of instruments and between sessions were determined using Bland-Altman plots. The coefficient of repeatability was calculated as the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of differences between the two sessions.

RESULTS

Tonopachy-NC, Tonopachy-C, Canon TX-10 and the Goldmann tonometers showed a mean IOP of 14.62, 15.64, 15.02 and 14.68 mmHg, respectively. Tonopachy-NC and Canon TX-10 readings did not differ significantly from the Goldmann (p > 0.05), with close agreement with both tonometers (GAT versus Tonopachy-NC: -3.84 to 3.96 mmHg; Goldmann versus Canon TX-10: -4.75 to 4.07 mmHg). Tonopachy-C readings differed significantly from Goldmann (mean difference -0.96 mmHg, p = 0.001, LoA from -5.09 to 3.17). Coefficients of repeatability were ± 3.70, ± 3.14 and ± 3.33 mmHg for GAT, Tonopachy-NC and Tonopachy-C, respectively. Central corneal thickness measured with Tonopachy was 530.42 ± 34.96 μm. There was a significant correlation between central corneal thickness and IOP for all tonometers except Tonopachy-C.

CONCLUSIONS

Reasonable agreement was observed between the Goldmann and Tonopachy. This instrument provides reliable and repeatable IOP measurements not influenced by central corneal thickness. The Tonopachy-NC and Canon TX-10 offer similar reliability compared to the Goldmann applanation tonometer in a young normotensive population.

Effects of inhaled fluticasone on intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness in asthmatic children without a family history of glaucoma

Purpose:

The aim of this study is to report the effects of fluticasone-inhaled corticosteroid on intraocular pressure (IOP) and central corneal thickness (CCT) of asthmatic children without a family history of glaucoma.

Materials and Methods:

In this prospective study, 93 children were divided into two groups: 69 asthmatic children with no family history of glaucoma who were taking inhaled fluticasone propionate 250 μg daily for at least 6 months (Group 1) and 24 age-matched control subjects without asthma (Group 2). Three measurements each, of IOP and CCT, were performed with a hand-held noncontact tonometer and a noncontact specular microscope, respectively, over a 12-week period. The order of IOP and CCT measured were randomized at each visit. Between-group comparison and the relationship between CCT and IOP measurements were investigated. P < 0.05 was statistically significant.

Results:

The mean age was 8 ± 2.4 years (range, 5–15 years) and 9 ± 2.9 years (range, 5–15 years) for Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.1337). The mean IOP was 14 ± 3.3 mmHg (range, 10–24 mmHg) and 14 ± 2.9 mmHg (range, 11–22 mmHg) for Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.3626). The mean CCT was 531 ± 30.1 μm (range, 467–601 μm) and 519 ± 47.0 μm (range, 415589 μm) for Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.1625). There was a weak but statistically significant correlation between IOP and CCT in Group 1 (Pearson's R = 0.3580, P = 0.0025).

Conclusions:

Inhaled fluticasone at the regular dose used in this study over a short period (6–24 months) was not associated with a significant effect on CCT and IOP measured with noncontact devices in asthmatic children between 5 and 15 years, without a family history of glaucoma. A weak correlation between IOP and CCT values in asthmatic children did exist.

The influence of lens power and center thickness on the intraocular pressure measured through soft lenses: a comparison of two noncontact tonometers

PURPOSE

To quantify the influence of soft contact lens power and thickness on the intraocular pressure (IOP).

METHODS

Thirty-nine young, healthy adult volunteers completed this study. One eye of each subject was randomly assigned either a +6D or a -6D high water content daily disposable lens. The other eye was fitted with the second lens. Triplicate measurements of IOP were taken before, during, and after contact lens wear. Each time, IOP was assessed in a randomized order with two noncontact tonometers. The lenses were swapped between eyes during a second session of measurements, one week later.

RESULTS

In the first session with the +6D lenses, the average IOPs (±SDs) before, with the lenses fitted, and after the lenses were removed, were: 14.3 ± 2.9 mmHg, 17.0 ± 3.3 mmHg and 13.9 ± 3.1 mmHg, respectively, for the CT80 and 13.6 ± 3.1 mmHg, 17.1 ± 4.5 mmHg and 13.3 ± 2.9 mmHg, respectively, for the PT100. The corresponding values for the first session with the -6D lenses were: 14.3 ± 3.1 mmHg, 13.1 ± 3.1 mmHg and 14.1 ± 3.3 mmHg, respectively, for the CT80 and 13.6 ± 3.2 mmHg, 13.0 ± 3.0 mmHg and 13.6 ± 3.2 mmHg, respectively, for the PT100. IOP significantly (P<0.05) increased (+ΔIOP=2.7 ± 0.4 mmHg with the CT80 in the first session) with the +6D lenses, but decreased (P<0.05) when the -6D lenses were fitted (-ΔIOP=0.6 ± 0.2 mmHg with the PT100 in the first session). The soft contact lens-induced changes were consistent between sessions but varied between tonometers.

CONCLUSIONS

The measurement of IOP through soft contact lenses resulted in consistent, statistically significant differences in IOP, which were not uniform across tonometers and which did not appear to be solely related to the central thickness of the soft contact lenses.

Performance of the rebound, noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers in routine clinical practice

PURPOSE

To compare rebound tonometry (RBT) and noncontact tonometry (NCT) using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) as reference.

METHODS

The study sample was comprised of 108 eyes of 108 subjects consecutively examined at a general ophthalmology clinic. The order of use of the three tonometers was randomized at the study outset. The difference between the methods was plotted against the mean to compare the tonometers. The hypothesis of zero bias was examined by a paired t-test and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were also calculated. Differences with respect to GAT were assessed according to the international standard for ocular tonometers (ISO 8612).

RESULTS

Mean intraocular pressures (IOPs ± SD) obtained using the three instruments were GAT 17.5 ± 3.8 mmHg; RBT 18.5 ± 5.5 mmHg and NCT 17.4 ± 5.6 mmHg. The 95% LoA were from -7.9 to +7.7 mmHg for NCT-GAT and from -6.8 mmHg to +8.7 mmHg for RBT-GAT. A difference with respect to GAT under ± 1 mmHg was observed in 11.1% of the eyes measured by NCT and 18.5% of eyes measured by RBT. According to the IOP ranges established by the ISO 8612, differences from GAT measurements greater than ± 5 mmHg were always above the accepted level of 5%. Correlations between IOP and central corneal thickness (CCT) were significant for all three tonometers.

CONCLUSIONS

The rebound and noncontact tonometer behaved similarly when used to measure IOP taking GAT measurements as the reference standard. Neither tonometer fulfilled ISO 8612 requirements. Both were similarly influenced by CCT.

Two-position measurement of intraocular pressure by PT100 noncontact tonometry in comparison with Goldmann tonometry

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the precision of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by PT100 noncontact tonometry in a handheld and slit lamp-mounted position in comparison with that of Goldmann applanation tonometry in healthy young adults.

Methods

Sixty eyes from 60 subjects (30 men and 30 women) aged 22 ± 1 (range 20–24) years participated in this study. Triplicate intraocular pressure measurement of a randomly selected eye was obtained by a noncontact tonometer in a handheld and slit lamp-mounted position in a randomized order, with the Goldmann applanation tonometer always performed last. A second measurement session was carried out after one week to assess repeatability.

Results

The mean ± standard deviation of intraocular pressure readings in the first and second session, respectively, with the three techniques were: handheld position, 14.52 ± 3.28 mmHg and 15.26 ± 2.11 mmHg; slit lamp-mounted position, 14.01 ± 2.80 mmHg and 15.16 ± 2.34 mmHg; and Goldmann applanation tonometer, 14.86 ± 3.26 mmHg and 15.16 ± 2.42 mmHg. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the techniques in the intraocular pressure measurements returned (Goldmann applanation tonometer vs handheld and Goldmann applanation tonometer vs slit lamp-mounted). The Goldmann applanation tonometer measured intraocular pressure 0.34 mmHg higher than handheld and 0.85 mmHg higher than slit lamp-mounted in session 1, and in session 2 Goldmann applanation tonometer intraocular pressure measurement was the same as with the slit lamp-mounted method but lower than with the handheld method by 0.11 mmHg. In PT100 handheld vs slit lamp-mounted comparisons, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between intraocular pressure measurements returned by both techniques in sessions 1 and 2. Intrasession and intersession repeatability coefficients for Goldmann applanation tonometer intraocular pressure and slit lamp-mounted intraocular pressure were similar, and better in comparison with those for handheld intraocular pressure.

Conclusion

The Goldmann applanation tonometer and PT100 noncontact tonometer in both positions studied here are reliable, consistent techniques for measurement of intraocular pressure, and can be used interchangeably for obtaining intraocular pressure values in young normal subjects. Repositioning of the PT100 tonometer from hand-held to slit lamp-mounted improved its precision and reduced variation with respect to the Goldmann applanation tonometer.

The effect of hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lenses on the measurement of intraocular pressure with rebound tonometry

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using rebound tonometry over disposable hydrogel (etafilcon A) and silicone hydrogel (senofilcon A) contact lenses (CLs) of different powers.

METHODS

The experimental group comprised 36 subjects (19 male, 17 female). IOP measurements were undertaken on the subject's right eyes in random order using a rebound tonometer (ICare). The CLs had powers of +2.00D, -2.00D and -6.00D. Six measurements were taken over each contact lens and also before and after the CLs had been worn.

RESULTS

A good correlation was found between IOP measurements with and without CLs (all r≥0.80; p<0.05). Bland Altman plots did not show any significant trend in the difference in IOP readings with and without CLs as a function of IOP value. A two-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of material and power (p<0.01) but no interaction. All the comparisons between the measurements without CLs and with hydrogel CLs were significant (p<0.01). The comparisons with silicone hydrogel CLs were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Rebound tonometry can be reliably performed over silicone hydrogel CLs. With hydrogel CLs, the measurements were lower than those without CLs. However, despite the fact that these differences were statistically significant, their clinical significance was minimal.

Performance of the PT100 noncontact tonometer in healthy eyes

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the repeatability and reproducibility of the PT100 noncontact tonometer and to compare its consistency with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in measuring intraocular pressure (IOP).

METHODS

Triplicate IOP measurements were obtained on two separate occasions using the PT100 and GAT from randomly selected eyes in 66 healthy volunteers aged 22 ± 1 years. The repeatability and reproducibility of each techniques was assessed. Agreement between the techniques was statistically quantified using intrasession repeatability for each technique as the basis for comparison.

RESULTS

Both techniques returned equal IOP values in the first measurement session (15 ± 3 mmHg). The second session showed a mean difference in average IOP (1 ± 0.71). The 95% limits of agreement between the techniques were -5.2 to 5.5 mmHg and -4.0 to 4.7 mmHg (sessions 1 and 2, respectively). These mean differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05, paired t-test), with the PT100 underestimating IOP measurement by 1.00 mmHg. The mean intrasession IOP for GAT sessions 1 and 2 was 0 ± 0.90 mmHg and 0.04 ± 1.06 mmHg, respectively, and the corresponding mean IOP measurement difference for the PT100 was -0.06 ± 0.96 and -0.39 ± 0.94 mmHg (sessions 1 and 2, respectively; P > 0.05, paired t-test). Repeatability coefficients for the GAT IOP measurements were 1.8 mmHg and 2.1 mmHg for sessions 1 and 2, while the PT100 repeatability coefficient was 1.9 mmHg and 1.8 mmHg for sessions 1 and 2, respectively. The intrasession repeatability coefficient of both techniques for test-retest differences were within ±5 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

The PT100 noncontact tonometer produced greater repeatability than the GAT in assessment of IOP, whereas GAT resulted in more reproducible results. Both techniques showed a close level of agreement on comparison, with the PT100 underestimating IOP measurement by 1.0 mmHg only, although this was not clinically or statistically significant. Of importance is that the IOP measurements using these techniques could be interchangeable in the IOP range studied here.

Comparison of the IOPen and iCare rebound tonometers with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population

This study proposes to evaluate the level of accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements of a second generation rebound tonometer (IOPen, taking as references the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT) and the iCare rebound tonometer. The right eyes of 101 consecutive clinical patients were assessed with the three tonometers. The IOPen and iCare measurements were taken by two different optometrists and the GAT by an ophthalmologist. In this study, statistically significant differences were found when comparing the IOPen tonometer with the other two tonometers (p < 0.001). The IOPen underestimated the IOP value when compared to the GAT and the iCare (mean differences were 2.94 +/- 4.65 mmHg and 3.20 +/- 4.72 mmHg (mean +/- S.D.), respectively). The frequency distribution of differences demonstrated that in more than 55% of measurements the IOP readings differed by more than 3 mmHg between the IOPen and the GAT. Based on the present population study, these results suggest that IOPen measurements should be interpreted with caution.

Clinical evaluation of the Canon TX-10 noncontact tonometer in healthy eyes

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy and repeatability of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the Canon TX-10 noncontact tonometer (NCT), using the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) as the gold standard.

METHODS

Seventy-three young healthy subjects were enrolled in the study. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was obtained with Orbscan Topography System and then repeated IOP measurements were obtained with both tonometers. Canon TX-10 NCT was performed first, followed by GAT. Another study sample of 32 young healthy subjects was used to test the repeatability with both tonometers. Two sets of data were acquired separated by 1 week. Plotting the difference between the methods against the mean was done to compare the tonometers and the intersession variability. The hypothesis of zero bias was examined by a paired t test. The 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were also calculated.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were found when comparing the Canon TX-10 NCT with GAT, displaying close level of agreement with GAT as seen by the 95% LoA (-4.78 mmHg to +4.00 mmHg). CCT ranged from 419 microm to 585 microm and no relationship was found between CCT and IOP measurements. The coefficients of repeatability were 3.70 mmHg and 3.41 mmHg for GAT and TX-10 tonometers, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a good agreement between Canon TX-10 and GAT in healthy subjects. From the results obtained here, CCT appears to not affect IOP measurements when CCT is thinner than 570 microm.

Evaluation of agreement between intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry and Goldmann correlated intraocular pressure by Reichert's ocular response analyser

PURPOSE

To compare agreement of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and Goldmann correlated intraocular pressure generated (IOPg) by the Reichert ocular response analyser (ORA).

METHODS

Consecutive patients presenting for glaucoma evaluation underwent ORA assessment followed by examination including GAT. For each ORA assessment, measurements were taken until a waveform score (WS) of 6.5 was obtained or until five measurements were obtained per eye. The relationship between GAT and IOPg and the influence of the WS upon this relationship was evaluated. A Bland-Altman plot and linear regression were used to determine agreement between GAT and IOPg.

RESULTS

A total of 518 eyes of 260 patients were included in the final analysis. Increasing WS was found to predict a smaller difference between GAT and IOPg (β=-0.2, P≤0.001). Selecting the highest WS among ORA assessments of each eye, WS continued to predict concordance between GAT and IOPg (β=-0.2, P=0.006). The mean IOP difference between methods was 0.1 mm Hg (±0.3), which was found to be statistically insignificant (P=0.391). This relationship between GAT and IOPg was successfully validated using a second distinct data set of 100 eyes. GAT and IOPg measurements varied by 2 mm Hg or less in 53.9% of eyes and 5 mm Hg or less in 92.3% of eyes.

CONCLUSION

In clinical practice IOPg is strongly related to GAT. Although higher WS is indicative of greater IOPg/GAT concordance, its influence is minimal. This study does not support the use of a specific WS cutoff to determine quality of an IOPg measurement.

Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements with the portable PT100 noncontact tonometer and goldmann applanation tonometry

Purpose:

Noncontact tonometers are useful when regulations preclude use of contact tonometers by medical students and other nonophthalmologists. Our study compared the measurements by the portable, noncontact tonometer (PT100) with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT).

Methods:

This was a prospective study of 98 eyes from 98 patients. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured by GAT and the PT100 (Reichert, Buffalo, NY).

Results:

Mean IOP measurements showed no significant differences in measurements performed by the two tonometers (P = 0.64). Measurements by the two tonometers were in agreement by ≤3 mmHg in 92.8% of eyes. Linear regression analysis of PT100 vs GAT measurements revealed a slope of 0.98 with r² = 0.58. Bland–Altman analysis showed a mean difference of measurements by GAT and PT100 of −0.3 mmHg with two standard deviation = 7.1 mmHg.

Conclusion:

The portable noncontact PT100 tonometer provides IOP measurements comparable to GAT within the normal range of IOP.

The effect of repeated applanation on subsequent IOP measurements

BACKGROUND

In studies aimed at assessing the accuracy and repeatability of non-contact tonometers, the order in which these tonometers and the Goldmann tonometer are used is usually randomised despite studies in the literature that demonstrate an ocular massage effect that occurs post-applanation but not after non-contact tonometry. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of repeated corneal applanation on subsequent assessments of IOP.

METHODS

Data were obtained from 65 left eyes of 65 young, oculovisual normals. Three sets of IOP measurements were obtained, one set with the Goldmann applanation tonometer and two with the Topcon CT80 non-contact tonometer (one set each before and after applanation with the Goldmann tonometer), in each one of two separate measurement sessions, one week apart.

RESULTS

The average (and SD) IOP measured with the Goldmann tonometer in the first session (14.8+/-2.9 mmHg) did not vary significantly from the IOP measured with the non-contact tonometer (pre-applanation) in both sessions or with the average Goldmann IOP in the second session. The bias (mean difference +/- SD) between methods was 0.3+/-1.4 mmHg and 0.4+/-1.4 mmHg, respectively, for the first and second sessions, with the CT80 (pre-applanation) recording the higher IOP in both sessions. The within-session repeatability coefficients were +/-2.3 mmHg, +/-2.6 mmHg, +/-2.1 mmHg and +/-2.0 mmHg for the CT80 (pre-applanation) in the first and second sessions, and the Goldmann tonometer in the first and second sessions, respectively. Test-retest repeatability coefficients were +/-2.8 mmHg and +/-2.5 mmHg for the CT80 (pre-applanation) and the Goldmann tonometer respectively. Post-applanation with the Goldmann tonometer, there was a statistically significant (p<0.05) reduction (1.5+/-1.2 mmHg in session 1) in the IOP measured with the non-contact tonometer in both sessions.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that repeated corneal applanation leads to a statistically significant reduction in IOP on subsequent measurements.

Technical note: a comparison of central and peripheral intraocular pressure using rebound tonometry

PURPOSE

To compare central and peripheral intraocular pressure (IOP) readings obtained with rebound tonometry.

METHODS

Intraocular pressure was measured on the right eye of 153 patients (65 males, 88 females), aged from 21 to 85 years (mean +/- S.D., 55.5 +/- 15.2 years) with the ICare rebound tonometer at centre, and 2 mm from the limbus (in the nasal and temporal regions along the 0-180 degrees corneal meridian).

RESULTS

Intraocular pressure values obtained with the ICare were 14.9 +/- 2.8; 14.1 +/- 2.5 and 14.5 +/- 2.7 mmHg at centre, nasal and temporal corneal locations, respectively. On average, nasal and temporal IOP readings were 0.75 and 0.37 mmHg lower than the central reading (p < 0.05 and p > 0.05, respectively). A highly significant correlation was found between central and peripheral measurements in nasal (r(2) = 0.905; p < 0.001) and temporal (r(2) = 0.879; p < 0.001) regions along the horizontal meridian. Almost 80% of patients presented nasal IOP values within +/-1 mmHg of the central value.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraocular pressure values measured with the ICare rebound tonometer on the nasal corneal region is slightly lower on average and highly correlated with IOP values recorded at corneal centre. Both nasal and temporal readings are in good agreement with central IOP, and could be used to obtain a reliable estimate of rebound IOP in corneas where central readings cannot be taken.

When is glaucoma really glaucoma?

The approach to the diagnosis and management of glaucoma has undergone considerable changes in recent years. Current concepts of glaucoma diagnosis focus on structural assessment and structure-function correlation, and relies less on the finding of visual field abnormalities. In turn, contemporary approaches to management have also changed and revolve around earlier initiation of pressure lowering medication based on pre-perimetric findings. This article presents an approach to the assessment of the patient with suspected glaucoma, highlighting those structural and ancillary diagnostic investigations that will aid in the correct diagnosis. It also discusses the differentiation of glaucoma from other, non-glaucomatous disease processes.

Assessment of the accuracy and reliability of the Topcon CT80 non-contact tonometer

BACKGROUND

The reliability of non-contact tonometers has been reported extensively in the literature. This study was designed to assess reliability of the new Topcon CT80 non-contact tonometer in normotensive subjects, using the Goldmann tonometer as the standard.

METHODS

The accuracy of the Topcon CT 80 non-contact tonometer was assessed by comparing its IOP assessments with those of the Goldmann applanation tonometer, on 60 right eyes of young healthy subjects with normal intraocular pressures. Each subject's intraocular pressure was assessed with each technique on two separate occasions, one week apart. The reliability of each technique was determined by the assessment of its inter-session repeatability using the Bland-Altman method. The 95 per cent limits of agreement for the two methods were also determined.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found between the average intraocular pressures measured with the two techniques (p > 0.05). The inter-session repeatability indices for the two techniques did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). The mean difference in intraocular measurements between the two techniques was 0.2 +/- 1.5 mmHg (mean +/- SD) and the 95 per cent limits of agreement were -3.14 and +2.74 mmHg, with the non-contact tonometer returning higher readings than the Goldmann tonometer.

CONCLUSION

In this sample of normotensive subjects, the Topcon CT80 non-contact tonometer proved to be accurate and as reliable as the Goldmann tonometer in the assessment of intraocular pressure. Thus, it can be used as an objective clinical method for the assessment of normal intraocular pressure.

Age differences in central and peripheral intraocular pressure using a rebound tonometer

AIM

To evaluate the influence of age on the measurements and relationships among central and peripheral intraocular pressure (IOP) readings taken with a rebound tonometer.

METHODS

The IOPs were measured using the ICare rebound tonometer on the right eyes of 217 patients (88 men and 129 women) aged 18-85 years (mean 45.9 (SD 19.8) years), at the centre and at 2 mm from the nasal and temporal limbus along the horizontal meridian. Three age groups were established: young (< or =30 years old; n = 75), middle aged (31-60 years old; n = 77) and old patients (>60 years old; n = 65).

RESULTS

A high correlation was found between the central and peripheral IOP readings, with the central readings being higher than the peripheral ones. Higher IOP values for the central location were found in the younger patients. Older patients had significantly lower temporal IOP readings than those for the remaining two groups (p<0.001), whereas no significant differences were found among groups when IOP was measured at the central and nasal locations. A significant decrease was observed in the nasal and temporal IOP readings as the age increased (p = 0.011 and 0.006, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Older patients had lower IOP values than the middle-aged and younger patients in the temporal peripheral location. A negative correlation was found between age and IOP by rebound tonometry in the corneal periphery but not in its centre.

Non-contact tonometry synchronized with cardiac rhythm and its relationship with blood pressure

PURPOSE

The main objectives of this study were to determine the differences between non-synchronized intraocular pressure (IOP_N) and intraocular pressure readings synchronized with cardiac pulse and try to determine if these parameters are related to blood pressure values.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-five right eyes from 165 volunteers (107 females, 58 males) aged from 19 to 73 years (mean +/- S.D., 29.93 +/- 11.17) were examined with the Nidek NT-4000, a new non-contact tonometer that allows the measurement of IOP synchronized with the cardiac rhythm. IOP measurements in the four different modes of synchronization were taken in a randomized order. Three measures of each parameter were taken and then averaged. The blood pressure was determined three times with a portable manometer and mean values of systolic and diastolic pressure and the pulse rate were computed. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was determined as being 1/3 of systolic plus 2/3 of diastolic blood pressure.

RESULTS

The mean +/- S.D. values for the standard intraocular pressure (IOP_N: 14.76 +/- 2.86), intraocular pressure in the systolic instant or peak (IOP_P: 14.99 +/- 2.85), intraocular pressure in the middle instant between heartbeats or middle (IOP_M: 14.68 +/- 2.76), and intraocular pressure in the diastolic instant or bottom (IOP_B: 13.86 +/- 2.61) were obtained. The IOP_P was higher than the remaining values. A significant difference in mean IOP existed between IOP_B and the remaining modes of measuring (p < 0.05). Differences were statistically significant for all pair comparisons involving IOP_B. Arterial blood pressure values were systolic 125.5 +/- 14.22, diastolic 77.7 +/- 8.38 and MAP 93.64 +/- 9.44 mmHg. The pulse rate was 77.3 +/- 12.6 beats per minute. Except for the MAP (p = 0.025) there was no significant correlation between different IOP values and systolic or diastolic blood pressure, or pulse rate.

CONCLUSIONS

NT-4000 is able to differentiate IOP values when synchronized with the cardiac rhythm and those differences are expected to be within a range of +/-2.5 to +/- 3.0 mmHg. IOP_B seems to be the parameter whose value differs from the non-synchronized and the remaining synchronized parameters in a significant way. Other than a weak association with MAP, no significant correlation between IOP and BP was found. The measurements of IOP readings for the three modes are consistent with timings during the cardiac cycle and IOP pulse cycle.

Accuracy of the new ICare rebound tonometer vs. other portable tonometers in healthy eyes

PURPOSE

The ICare (Tiolat Oy, Helsinki, Finland) is a new portable tonometer that measures intraocular pressure (IOP) with a new rebound method, in which a very light probe is used to make momentary contact with the cornea in slow motion. The purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy of the ICare IOP measurements by comparing them against other portable tonometers: Perkins applanation tonometer and Tono-Pen XL digital tonometer (Medtronic Solan, Jacksonville, FL).

METHODS

Sixty-five young subjects were assessed with each of the tonometers. ICare tonometry was performed first, followed by Perkins applanation tonometry and Tono-Pen XL in a random order. Regression analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between the Perkins tonometer and the remaining tonometers used in this study. Tonometers were also compared by plotting the difference between the methods against the mean. The hypothesis of zero bias was examined by a paired t test and the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated.

RESULTS

ICare and Tono-Pen XL significantly overestimate IOP when compared with Perkins applanation tonometry. The mean of the difference between Perkins and ICare and Perkins and Tono-Pen XL was (mean +/- standard deviation) -3.35 +/- 2.28 mm Hg and -2.78 +/- 2.53 mm Hg, respectively. The 95% LoA between Perkins tonometry and ICare tonometry were between -7.81 and +1.12 and between Perkins tonometry and Tono-Pen XL tonometry between -7.74 and +2.18.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with Perkins tonometry, the ICare tonometer allows clinicians to estimate IOP with a portable, rapid, and noninvasive method with similar reliability to that offered by Tono-Pen XL. Clinicians should be aware of the systematic overestimation of IOP with the ICare. Further research is needed to evaluate the performance of rebound tonometry in populations with higher IOP and assess the reliability of this technique in the early detection and follow up of glaucomatous patients.

A comparison of four methods of tonometry: method agreement and interobserver variability

AIM

To compare the inter-method agreement in intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements made with four different tonometric methods.

METHODS

IOP was measured with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Tono-Pen XL, ocular blood flow tonograph (OBF), and Canon TX-10 non-contact tonometer (NCT) in a randomised order in one eye of each of 105 patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Three measurements were made with each method, and by each of two independent GAT observers. GAT interobserver and tonometer inter-method agreement was assessed by the Bland-Altman method. The outcome measures were 95% limits of agreement for IOP measurements between GAT observers and between tonometric methods, and 95% confidence intervals for intra-session repeated measurements.

RESULTS

The mean differences (bias) in IOP measurements were 0.4 mm Hg between GAT observers, and 0.6 mm Hg, 0.1 mm Hg, and 0.7 mm Hg between GAT and Tono-Pen, OBF, and NCT, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement were smallest (bias +/-2.6 mm Hg) between GAT observers, and larger for agreement between the GAT and the Tono-Pen, OBF, and NCT (bias +/-6.7, +/-5.5, and +/-4.8 mm Hg, respectively). The OBF and NCT significantly underestimated GAT measurements at lower IOP and overestimated these at higher IOP. The repeatability coefficients for intra-session repeated measurement for each method were +/-2.2 mm Hg and +/-2.5 mm Hg for the GAT, +/-4.3 mm Hg for the Tono-Pen, +/-3.7 mm Hg for the OBF, and +/-3.2 mm Hg for the NCT.

CONCLUSIONS

There was good interobserver agreement with the GAT and moderate agreement between the NCT and GAT. The differences between the GAT and OBF and between the GAT and Tono-Pen probably preclude the OBF and Tono-Pen from routine clinical use as objective methods to measure IOP in normal adult eyes.

Comparison of the ICareR rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) using a new induction/impact rebound tonometer (ICare) in comparison with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (AT). The left eyes of 46 university students were assessed with the two tonometers, with induction tonometry being performed first. The ICare was handled by an optometrist and the Goldmann tonometer by an ophthalmologist. In this study, statistically significant differences were found when comparing the ICare rebound tonometer with applanation tonometry (AT) (p < 0.05). The mean difference between the two tonometers was 1.34 +/- 2.03 mmHg (mean +/- S.D.) and the 95% limits of agreement were +/-3.98 mmHg. A frequency distribution of the differences demonstrated that in more than 80% of cases the IOP readings differed by <3 mmHg between the ICare and the AT. In the present population the ICare overestimates the IOP value by 1.34 mmHg on average when compared with Goldmann tonometer. Nevertheless, the ICare tonometer may be helpful as a screening tool when Goldmann applanation tonometry is not applicable or not recommended, as it is able to estimate IOP within a range of +/-3.00 mmHg in more than 80% of the population.