Comparison of Goldmann applanation, non-contact, dynamic contour and tonopen tonometry measurements in healthy and glaucomatous eyes, and effect of central corneal thickness on the measurement results
Aim To compare the correlation of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), non-contact tonometry (NCT), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) and tono-pen (TP) in glaucomatous and healthy eyes, and to investigate the effect of central corneal thickness (CCT) on the measurements. Methods One hundred eyes of 100 glaucoma patients and 50 eyes of 50 healthy individuals were compared. In all of the eyes, CCT was evaluated using ultrasonic pachymeter. IOP was measured using NCT, TP, DCT and GAT, respectively. IOP measurements and correlation of these measurements with CCT were calculated using Pearson and intra-group correlation analysis. Results In the glaucoma group, the mean IOP was 16.42 ± 2.80 mmHg with NCT, 17.12 ± 2.49 mmHg with TP, 18.27 ± 2.62 mmHg with DCT and 16.08 ± 3.00 mmHg with GAT. The mean CCT was 532.15 ± 39.08 μm. In normal individuals, mean IOP was 14.64 ± 2.20 mmHg with NCT, 15.32 ± 1.85 mmHg with TP, 16.72 ± 2.31 mmHg with DCT and 14.16 ± 2.80 mmHg with GAT. The mean CCT was 538.40 ± 31.64 μm. Conclusion A strong compliance between NCT and GAT has been observed. NCT can be used instead of GAT.
Quigley H, Hohman R, Addicks E, Massof R, Green W. Morphologic changes in lamina cribrosa correlated with neural loss in open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1983;673–91.
2.
Smith M, Doyle J;, Yanoff M, Duker J, Ophtalmology, St, et al. Clinical examination of glaucoma. 2007;1413–5.
3.
Bhan A, Browning A, Shah S, Bhan A, Browning A, Shah S, et al. Effect of corneal thickness on ocular pressure measurements with pneumotonometer, Goldmann applanation tonometer and tonopen. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;1389–92.
4.
Whitacre M, Stein R. Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol. 1993;1–30.
5.
Goldmann H, Schmidt T. Applanation tonometry. Ophthalmologica. 1957;221–42.
6.
Kohlhaas M, Boehm A, Spoerl E, Pürsten A, Grein H, Pillunat L. Effect of central corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and axial length on applanation tonometry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;471–6.
7.
Doughty M, Zaman M. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review: a meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;367–408.
8.
Ozcan A, Ciloglu E, Esen E, Undar I, Harbiyeli I, Simsek F. Comparison of rebound tonometer, dynamic contour tonometer, tonopen XL with Goldmann applanation tonometer in normal eyes. Glaucoma-Cataract Journal. 2013;225–30.
9.
Recep O, Hasıripi H, Vayısoğlu E, Recep O, Hasiripi H, Vayisoglu E, et al. Accurate time interval in repeated tonometry. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;603–5.
10.
Siganos D, Papastergiou L, Thiel M. Assesment of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer in monitoring intraocular pressure in unoperated eyes and after LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;746–51.
11.
Francis B, Hsieh A, Lai M, Chopra V, Pena F, Azen S, et al. Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2007;20–6.
12.
Tonnu P, Ho T, Newson T. The influence of central corneal thickness and age on intraocular pressure measured by pneumotonometry, non-contact tonometry, the Tono-Pen XL, and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;851–4.
13.
Eser E, Baser E, Seymenoglu G. Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometry, dynamic contour tonometry and non-contact tonometry and the effect of central corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurements. Glaucoma-Cataract Journal. 2008;107–12.
14.
Nakamura M, Darhad U, Tatsumi Y. Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of applanation tonometers. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;332–4.
15.
Matsumoto T, Makino H, Uozato H. The influence of corneal thickness and curvature on the difference between intraocular pressure measurements obtained with a non-contact tonometer and those with a Goldmann applanation tonometer. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi. 2000;317–23.
16.
Ku J, Danesh-Meyer H, Craig J. Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Eye. 2006;191–8.
17.
Kamppeter B, Jonas J. Dynamic contour tonometry for intraocular pressure measurement. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;318–20.
18.
Erdurmuş M, Totan Y, Yağcı R. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and non-contact tonometry in ocular hypertension and primer open angle glaucoma. Turkiye Klinikleri J Ophtalmol. 2007;108–13.
19.
Doyle A, Lachkar Y. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldmann applanation tonometry over a wide range of central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma. 2005;288–92.
20.
Broman A, Congdon N, Bandeen-Roche K. Influence of corneal structure, corneal responsiveness, and other ocular parameters on tonometric measurement of intraocular pressure. J Glaucoma. 2007;581–8.
21.
Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J, Nee M, Bostrom A, Stürmer J, et al. Correlation between intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness, stage of glaucoma, and demographic patient data: prospective analysis of biophysical parameters in tertiary glaucoma practice populations. J Glaucoma. 2006;91–7.
22.
Viestenz A, Langenbucher A, Viestenz A. Reproducibility of dynamic contour tonometry, comparison with TonoPenXL and Goldmann applanation tonometry -a clinical study on 323 normal eyes. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 2006;813–9.
23.
Salvetat M, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Salvetat M, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, et al. Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the To-noPen, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;272–9.
24.
Ozturk F, Kuspeci T, Yavas G, Ozturk F, Kuspeci T, Yavas G, et al. Comparison of intraocular pressure by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry, Non-contact tonometry and Tono-pen and effect of central corneal thickness. Glaucoma-Cataract Journal. 2006;171–5.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
