Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Ophthalmology
Published in: International Ophthalmology 8/2020

01-08-2020 | Glaucoma | Original Paper

A comparison of three different tonometric methods in the measurement of intraocular pressure in the pediatric age group

Authors: Dilek Uzlu, Nurettin Akyol, Adem Türk, Yavuz Oruç

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 8/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and aim

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with non-contact tonometry (NCT), Icare rebound tonometry (IRT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in pediatric cases and to examine the effect of topical anesthesia on measurements obtained using IRT.

Materials and methods

Pediatric cases in a healthy general condition and with ophthalmic examination findings within normal limits were included in the study. IOP measurements were taken with NCT and IRT devices in all cases. Topical anesthesia was subsequently applied, and IOP measurements were then repeated using IRT and GAT tonometer devices. Differences between measurements were subjected to statistical analysis.

Results

One hundred ten eyes of 55 patients, 27 male, with a mean age of 11.44 ± 2.31 years (7–17) were included. Mean pre-anesthesia IOP values were 16.47 ± 2.89 mmHg with NCT and 17.49 ± 2.57 mmHg with IRT. Mean IOP values after topical anesthesia were 16.91 ± 2.17 mmHg with IRT and 15.51 ± 2.41 mmHg with GAT. IOP measurement values obtained with all three devices exhibited positive correlation with central corneal thickness values. Statistically significant correlation was present in terms of IOP measurement values between all three devices. However, IOP values obtained with the three devices exhibited statistically significant differences. The application of topical anesthesia caused a statistically significant decrease in IRT measurements; however, statistically significant this small change (0.58 mmHg) in recorded IOP would not be considered clinically significant.

Conclusion

IOP measurements obtained with NCT, IRT and GAT devices in the pediatric age group correlate with one another, but differ from one another in a statistically significant manner. Application of topical anesthesia affects IRT measurements; however, these small changes would not be considered clinically significant.
Literature
1.
Heijl A, Leske MC, Hyman L et al (2002) Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 120(10):1268–1279PubMedCrossRef
2.
Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M et al (2003) Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 121(1):48–56PubMedCrossRef
3.
Group CN-TGS (1998) Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Am J Ophthalmol 126(4):487–497CrossRef
4.
Kao SF, Lichter PR, Bergstrom TJ et al (1987) Clinical comparison of the OculabTono-Pen to the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Ophthalmology 94:15411544CrossRef
5.
Eraslan M, Çerman E, Sümmen S (2017) Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements in healthy pediatric patients using three types of tonometers. Turk J Ophthalmol 47:1PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Cook JA, Botello AP, Elders A et al (2012) Systematic review of the agreement of tonometers with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthalmology 119:1552–1557PubMedCrossRef
7.
Tamçelik N, Atalay E, Cicik E et al (2015) Comparability of Icare pro rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation and noncontact tonometer in a wide range of intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness. Ophthalmic Res 54(1):18–25PubMedCrossRef
8.
Recep OF, Hasiripi H, Çağil N et al (2001) Relation between corneal thickness and intraocular pressure measurement by noncontact and applanation tonometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 27(11):1787–1791PubMedCrossRef
9.
Farhood QK (2013) Comparative evaluation of intraocular pressure with an air-puff tonometer versus a Goldmann applanation tonometer. ClinmOphthalmol 7:23–27
10.
García-Resúa C, Pena-Verdeal H, Miñones M et al (2013) Reliability of the non-contact tono-pachymeter Tonopachy NT-530P in health yeyes. Clin Exp Optom 96:286–294PubMedCrossRef
11.
Ogbuehi KC (2006) Assessment of the accuracy and reliability of the Topcon CT80 non-contact tonometer. Clin Exp Optom 89:310–314PubMedCrossRef
12.
Feng CS, Jin KW, Yi K et al (2015) Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by rebound, noncontact, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in children. Am J Ophthalmol 160:937–943PubMedCrossRef
13.
Flemmons MS, Hsiao YC, Dzau J et al (2011) Icare rebound tonometry in children with known and suspected glaucoma. J AAPOS 15(2):153–157PubMedCrossRef
14.
Sahin A, Basmak H, Niyaz L et al (2007) Reproducibility and tolerability of the ICare rebound tonometer in school children. J Glaucoma 16(2):185–188PubMedCrossRef
15.
Pakrou N, Gray T (2008) Clinical comparison of the Icare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma 17:43–47PubMedCrossRef
16.
Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M (2006) Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 15:213–217PubMedCrossRef
17.
Iliev ME, Goldblum D, Katsoulis K et al (2006) Comparison of rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry and correlation with central corneal thickness. Br J Ophthalmol 90(7):833–835PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Almubrad TM, Ogbuehi KC (2007) Clinical investigation of the effect of topical anesthesia on intraocular pressure. Clin Ophthalmol 1:305–309PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Montero JA, Ruiz-Moreno JM, Fernandez-Munoz M et al (2008) Effect of topical anesthetics on intraocular pressure and pachymetry. Eur J Ophthalmol 18(5):748–750PubMedCrossRef
20.
Dosunmu EO, Marcus I, Tung I et al (2014) The effect of repeated measurements and the use of topical anesthetic on rebound tonometry values in children. J AAPOS 18(6):619–621PubMedCrossRef
21.
Yılmaz I, Altan C, Aygıt DE et al (2014) Comparison of three methods of tonometry in normal subjects: goldmann applanationmtonometer, non-contact airpuff tonometer and Tono-PenXl. Clin Ophthalmol 8:1069–1074PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Salim S, Linn DJ, Echols JR II et al (2009) Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements with the portable PT100 noncontact tonometer and goldmann applanation tonometry. Clin Ophthalmol 3:341–344PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Gao F, Lıu X, Zhao Q et al (2017) Comparison of the icare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Exp Therap Med 13:1912–1916CrossRef
24.
Kato Y, Nakakura S, Matsuo N et al (2018) Agreement among Goldmann applanation tonometer, iCare, and Icare PRO rebound tonometers; non-contact tonometer; and Tonopen XL in healthy elderly subjects. Int Ophthalmol 38(2):687–696PubMedCrossRef
25.
Güler M, Bilak Ş, Bilgin B et al (2015) Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements obtained byIcare PRO rebound tonometer, Tomey FT-1000 noncontact tonometer, and Goldmann applanationtonometer in healthy subjects. J Glaucoma 24(8):613–618PubMedCrossRef
26.
Grigorian F, Grigorian AP, Li A et al (2015) Comparison of the Icare rebound tonometry with the Goldmann applanation tonometry in a pediatric population. J AAPOS 19(6):572–574PubMedCrossRef
27.
Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Jimenez-Santos M, Saenz-Frances F et al (2011) Performance of the rebound, noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers in routine clinical practice. Acta Ophthalmol 89(7):676–680PubMedCrossRef
28.
Rao A, Kumar M, Prakash B et al (2014) Relationship of central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure by icare rebound tonometer. J Glaucoma 23(6):380–384PubMedCrossRef
29.
Moreno-Montañés J, Gosende I, Caire J et al (2011) Comparation of the new rebound tonometer IOPen and the Goldmanntonometer, and their relationship to corneal properties. Eye (Lond) 25(1):50–56CrossRef
30.
Burdová MC, Ferrová K, Filous A et al (2011) Correlation of intraocular pressure measured by applanation tonometry, noncontact tonometry and Tonopen with central corneal thickness. CeskSlov Oftalmol 67(5–6):154–157
Metadata
Title
A comparison of three different tonometric methods in the measurement of intraocular pressure in the pediatric age group
Authors
Dilek Uzlu
Nurettin Akyol
Adem Türk
Yavuz Oruç
Publication date
01-08-2020
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Ophthalmology / Issue 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01375-8

Other articles of this Issue 8/2020

International Ophthalmology 8/2020 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Assessment of COL1A1 and MMP9 expression in patients with dermatochalasis

Original Paper

Clinical features differentiating intratarsal keratinous cyst from chalazion

Original Paper

Recurrent retinal detachment after diabetic vitrectomy

Original Paper

Gonioscopy-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy as an option after failed trabeculectomy

Original Paper

Swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography alleviates shadowing artifacts caused by subretinal fluid

Original Paper

A comparison of the effects of different cap thicknesses on corneal nerve destruction after small incision lenticule extraction