Literature DB >> 16628242

Comparison of Luneau SA disposable and Goldmann applanation tonometer readings.

A C J Baddon1, S F Osborne, S A Quah, M Batterbury, D Wong.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To test the agreement of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements made with Luneau SA applanators and Goldmann applanator.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-blind crossover trial. IOPs were measured in both eyes of subjects with both applanators. Type of applanator was alternated to eliminate systematic bias. Multiple observers were used. Observers were blind to the scale while performing measurements but not to the type of applanator used. The appearance of the meniscus was assessed semiquantitatively. All measurements were combined and presented in a Bland-Altman plot.
RESULTS: A total of 140 eyes of 79 subjects were tested by seven observers. The range of measurements was 6-45 mmHg (mean 17.8 mmHg) for the Goldmann applanator. On average, the Luneau SA applanator (range of measurements 4-36 mmHg) gave a measurement of 2.35 mmHg less than the Goldmann standard. The standard deviation of these differences was 2.13 mmHg, giving an upper 95% confidence limit of 6.53 mmHg and a lower 95% confidence limit of -1.83 mmHg. The measurements agreed in only 24 out of 140 instances. In 28 eyes, the disposable tonometer end point was difficult to assess owing to excessively thick rings. Linear extrapolation suggests an increase in difference with increasing IOP.
CONCLUSION: The inter-head inaccuracy, tendency to underestimate IOP, and lack of systematic inaccuracy make a corrective algorithm impossible to formulate. The range of variation between the Luneau SA disposable applanator and the Goldmann standard is sufficiently large to influence clinical management decisions. We speculate that one explanation is the interaction of the tonometer with the tear film, making end point determination difficult. Further research is being undertaken.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16628242     DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6702329

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eye (Lond)        ISSN: 0950-222X            Impact factor:   3.775


  3 in total

1.  Does the surface property of a disposable applanation tonometer account for its underestimation of intraocular pressure when compared with the Goldmann tonometer?

Authors:  Sarah F Osborne; Rachel Williams; Mark Batterbury; David Wong
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-08-16       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Comparing the Tonojet disposable tonometer with the traditional Goldmann tonometer in glaucomatous and non-glaucomatous eyes.

Authors:  S M J Farrell; I Dooley; E O'Connell; S Bashir; A Foley-Nolan; F Kearns; P Logan; T Fulcher
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-01-23       Impact factor: 2.031

Review 3.  How should we measure intraocular pressure in the era of coronavirus disease 2019? Balancing infectious risk, cleaning requirements, and accuracy.

Authors:  Christine A Petersen; Andrew Chen; Philip P Chen
Journal:  Curr Opin Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 3.761

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.