Search

Purpose: To evaluate the agreement between Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT; Haag-Streit, Bern, Switzerland) and several portable tonometers that could be used for glaucoma screening programs., Design: Evaluation of a diagnostic test., Participants: Three hundred twenty-one eyes of 168 participants seeking treatment at the glaucoma clinic of a tertiary eye hospital in India., Methods: Participants underwent intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement with GAT and 4 index tests: the Icare TA01i rebound tonometer (Icare USA, Raleigh, NC), a noncontact tonometer (NCT; Topcon CT-80; Topcon; Tokyo, Japan), a pneumatonometer (Model 30; Reichert Technologies; Depew, NY), and the Tono-Pen AVIA (Reichert Technologies)., Main Outcome Measures: Estimates of reproducibility of IOP measurements between each index test and GAT, including the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement., Results: The Icare showed the greatest agreement with GAT (ICC, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.74), followed by the NCT (ICC, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), the Tono-Pen (ICC, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.59), and the pneumatonometer (ICC, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.44). The pneumatonometer and Tono-Pen tended to overestimate IOP relative to GAT, with a mean difference of 3.4 mmHg (95% limits of agreement [LOA], -7.3 to 14.1 mmHg) for the pneumatonometer and 3.2 mmHg (95% LOA, -6.1 to 12.6 mmHg) for the Tono-Pen. In contrast, measurements from the Icare and NCT were on average within 1 point of those for GAT (mean difference, -0.4 mmHg [95% LOA, -8.4 to 7.6 mmHg] and -0.5 mmHg [95% LOA, -8.7 to 7.6 mmHg], respectively)., Conclusions: The Icare and NCT both demonstrated good agreement with GAT across a wide range of IOPs and could be considered for glaucoma screening programs., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

The definition of glaucoma has changed over the decades from a simple ocular pressure disease to a systemic disorder of multivariate etiology. Glaucoma may be defined for the individual eye as a chronic ocular disease with various underlying pathophysiologic disorders. However, elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is still the most important risk factor for an untreated glaucomatous eye to progress to a more severe stage of the disease. As the main risk factor within therapeutic reach, IOP and its appropriate measurement deserve our ongoing interest. Not only has our understanding of glaucoma changed but also our approach to the measurement of the IOP. In this article we focus our attention on the various developments in tonometry from the simple force-tonometers of the late 19th century to the high-technology pressure tonometers that were recently introduced for clinical use.

Interindividual variability of central corneal thickness has been found to be a source of error for conventional Goldmann applanation tonometry. The dynamic contour tonometer represents a potentially new technology for non-invasive and direct intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement, and has been proposed to accurately measure the true IOP irrespective of the corneal thickness. It is based on the principle that when the tip of the device exactly matches the contour of the cornea, the pressure measured by a transducer placed on its tip is an accurate indicator of the true IOP. This device is also capable of measuring the ocular pulse amplitude, a variable that has controversial significance in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Even though this technique seems to be very promising, further studies are required to conclusively determine the effectiveness of the dynamic contour tonometer in patients having an abnormal or irregular corneal contour.

Purpose: To compare the intraocular pressures (IOP) and ocular pulse amplitudes (OPA) in patients with different types of glaucoma, ocular hypertension (OHT), and normal controls (NC) using dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and the goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT)., Methods: 906 eyes of 501 adult patients in the following five groups were included in this cross-sectional study: primary open angle glaucoma (POAG), normal tension glaucoma (NTG), Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma (PXG), OHT, and NC. The following tests were performed simultaneously during a single visit: IOP using DCT and GAT; OPA using DCT and central corneal thickness (CCT) using ultrasound pachymetry. Mixed effects regression models were used to compare the DCT and GAT IOP measurements in the five groups; the effect of CCT on IOP and the relationship between OPA and IOP within each group., Results: DCT consistently had higher IOP values than GAT in POAG, PXG, NTG, and controls (p < 0.001) but not in OHT (p = 0.84). DCT IOP did not change while GAT IOP showed a non-significant increase (p = 0.09) with increased corneal thickness in each group. OPA was found to be highest in OHT (3.61 mmHg) and lowest in the control group (2.86 mmHg) and significantly increased with IOP in all groups., Conclusions: DCT measures an IOP that is significantly higher than GAT IOP in glaucoma and control subjects but not in ocular hypertensives. Furthermore, the DCT may measure an IOP that is independent of the CCT, which may not be true for the GAT, which increases with the CCT. OPA was highest in OHT and may be affected by the IOP.

Objectives: To compare intraocular pressure readings of recently introduced dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) with pneumatonometry (PTG) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and to correlate central corneal thickness (CCT) with these readings., Design: Prospective, cross-sectional observation and instrument validation study. We included 258 independent eyes with normal anterior segment examinations results, irrespective of glaucoma diagnosis or glaucoma suspect. After pachymetry, DCT, PTG, and GAT were performed in a randomized order. Intraocular pressures as measured by DCT, PTG, and GAT were compared with each other and with CCT., Results: Eyes with thinner CCTs tended to yield lower intraocular pressure measurements by GAT. A significant correlation (Pearson product moment correlation, P<.001) between CCT and GAT was found with a regression of 0.25 mm Hg per 10 microm (R2 = 0.060). Variation of CCT had no significant effect on intraocular pressure measurements by PTG (P = .10; R2 = 0.01) and DCT (P = .80; R2<0.01). A piecewise regression model showed that GAT readings are not linearly correlated with CCT. Comparison of the slopes below and above 535 microm showed the highest significance (P<.001)., Conclusions: Goldmann applanation tonometry readings are potentially influenced by CCT, whereas PTG and DCT seem to be less dependent on CCT. Correlation between CCT and GAT is not linear. A simple correction formula suggesting a linear relationship might not be correct.

Background: In an experimental laboratory investigation we compared intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), and pneumatonometry (PTG) with intracameral manometry on human cadaver corneas of different hydration conditions., Methods: Ten freshly enucleated eyes were de-epithelialized. Two tubes were placed in the anterior chamber in opposite directions and connected to a transducer and to a bottle system filled with balanced salt solution. The pressure in the eye was then adjusted between 5 mmHg and 58 mmHg by electronically altering the height of the bottle. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was registered and IOP measurements were obtained with DCT, GAT, and PTG at each manometric pressure reading. Immediately after the trial the same corneas were artificially dehydrated and the same measurement regimen was repeated., Results: In the pressure range defined by the bottle height 10-50 cm, IOP values measured by DCT were 0.50 mmHg (95% CI=0.40-0.60) and 0.36 mmHg (95% CI=0.25-0.47) higher than manometric readings before and after dehydration, respectively. GAT showed consistently lower values than manometry, the difference being -3.48 mmHg (95% CI=-3.91 to -3.05) and -3.14 mmHg (95% CI=-3.39 to -2.89), respectively. Similar results were obtained with PGT, namely differences of -4.75 mmHg (95% CI=-5.21 to -4.29) and -3.98 mmHg (95% CI=-4.48 to -3.48) for the hydrated and the dehydrated corneal condition, respectively. Only DCT showed no significant change in accuracy between hydrated and dehydrated corneas., Conclusions: In this in vitro study DCT values for IOP were significantly closer to the manometric reference pressure than those obtained using GAT and PTG, independent of the state of corneal hydration.

Objective: To compare intraocular pressure measurements obtained by recently introduced dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), pneumatonometry (PTG), and intracameral manometry in human cadaver eyes., Methods: Sixteen freshly enucleated human cadaver eyes were deepithelialized and dehydrated with dextran. A tube was placed in the anterior chamber and connected to a transducer and to a bottle system filled with balanced salt solution. The pressure in the eye was then altered between 5 mm Hg and 58 mm Hg. Intraocular pressure measurements were obtained with DCT, GAT, and PTG at each manometric pressure reading., Results: On average, DCT values measured 0.58 +/- 0.70 mm Hg higher than real intracameral pressure. The GAT and PGT showed consistently lower values, -4.01 +/- 1.76 mm Hg and -5.09 +/- 2.61 mm Hg, respectively. At all bottle heights, DCT values were significantly closer to the reference pressure than GAT and PTG (P<.001)., Conclusions: Measurement with DCT provides IOP values significantly closer to true manometric levels than either GAT or PTG. Further studies are warranted to determine its reliability in patients and the effect of corneal thickness.