Top

Published in:

01-12-2010 | Original Paper

Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer

Authors: Charlotte Renier, Thierry Zeyen, Steffen Fieuws, Sofie Vandenbroeck, Ingeborg Stalmans

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 6/2010

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the intra-ocular pressure (IOP) obtained by ocular response analyzer (ORA), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). In 102 patients (47 with primary open-angle glaucoma and 55 healthy controls) IOP was measured with GAT, ORA and DCT in one eye. The agreement between GAT, DCT and ORA values was assessed using Bland–Altman plots. The discrepancy between the methods was related to central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) using linear regression models. Significant differences were observed amongst DCT, corneal compensated ORA (ORAcc) and GAT (P < 0.01). Only the ORAcc and DCT were comparable. ORAcc and DCT significantly over-estimated IOP compared to GAT and for ORAcc this difference depended on the height of IOP. A significant correlation was found between CCT and the deviation of DCT and ORAcc from corrected GAT (both P < 0.0001). Our study showed a low degree of agreement between IOP measured by ORA, DCT and GAT. DCT and ORAcc over-estimated the IOP compared to GAT.

Whitacre MM, Stein R (1993) Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol 38:1–30CrossRefPubMed

Doughty MJ, Zaman ML (2000) Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol 44:367–408CrossRefPubMed

Noecker RS, Dirks MS, Choplin NT, Bernstein P, Batoosingh AL, Whitcup SM (2003) A six-month randomized clinical trial comparing the intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 13:55–63CrossRef

Hager A, Schroeder B, Sadeghi M, Grosserr M, Wiegand W (2007) The influence of corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor on the measurement of intraocular pressure. Ophthalmologe 104:484–489CrossRefPubMed

Kanngiesser HE, Kniestedt C, Robert YC (2005) Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer. J Glaucoma 14:344–350CrossRefPubMed

Quan H, Shih WJ (1996) Assessing reproducibility by the within-subject coefficient of variation with random effects models. Biometrics 52(4):1195–1203CrossRefPubMed

Bland JM, Altman BG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310PubMed

Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160CrossRefPubMed

Ku JYF, Danesh-Meyer HV, Craig JP, Gamble GD, McGhee CNJ (2006) Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Eye 20:191–198CrossRefPubMed

10.

Schneider E, Grehn F (2006) Intraocular pressure measurement: comparison of dynamic contour tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer. J Glaucoma 15:2–6CrossRefPubMed

11.

Doyle A, Lackhar Y (2005) Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry over a wide range of central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma 14:288–292CrossRefPubMed

12.

Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Brushini P (2007) Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the TonoPen, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85:272–279CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA (2003) Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:3118–3121CrossRef

14.

Pache M, Wilmsmeyer S, Lautebach S, Funk J (2005) Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:763–767CrossRefPubMed

15.

Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J (2006) Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:4410–4414CrossRefPubMed

16.

Johannesson G, Hallberg P, Eklund A, Linden C (2007) Pascal, ICare and Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Acta Ophthalmol 86(6):614–621

17.

Siganos D, Papastergiou G, Moedas C (2004) Assessment of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer in monitoring intraocular pressure in unoperated eyes and eyes after LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:746–751CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer
Authors: Charlotte Renier
Thierry Zeyen
Steffen Fieuws
Sofie Vandenbroeck
Ingeborg Stalmans
Publication date: 01-12-2010
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: International Ophthalmology / Issue 6/2010
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-010-9377-9

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2010

Aqueous humor and serum erythropoietin levels in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome and pseudoexfoliative glaucoma

Early unilateral macular sensitivity changes in microperimetry in a case of pituitary adenoma

Penetrating keratoplasty versus deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for the treatment of keratoconus

The etiology of infectious corneal ulceration in Sierra Leone

Disentangling renal function in the context of irreversible ethambutol optic neuropathy

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: diagnosis and treatment masking the ophthalmic clinical presentation of a pineal gland tumour in a teenager