Literature DB >> 16912886

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

Sarah F Osborne1, Rachel Williams, Mark Batterbury, David Wong.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Disposable tonometers are increasingly being adopted partly because of concerns over the transmission of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and partly for convenience. Recently, we have found one such tonometer (Tonojet by Luneau Ophthalmologie, France) underestimated the intraocular pressure (IOP).
METHODS: We hypothesized that this underestimation was caused by a difference in the surface property of the tonometers. A tensiometer was used to measure the suction force resulting from interfacial tension between a solution of lignocaine and fluorescein and the tonometers.
RESULTS: The results showed that the suction force was significantly greater for the Goldmann compared to the Tonojet.
CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of this force was too small to account for the difference in IOP measurements. The Tonojet was less hydrophilic than the Goldmann, and the contact angle of the fluid was therefore greater. For a given tear film, less hydrophilic tonometers will tend to have thicker mires, and this may lead to underestimation of the IOP. When such disposable tonometers are used, it is recommended care should be taken to reject readings from thick mires.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16912886     DOI: 10.1007/s00417-006-0380-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  7 in total

1.  Evaluation of a disposable prism for applanation tonometry.

Authors:  S P Desai; S Sivakumar; P T Fryers
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  Microcontact printing of proteins on oxygen plasma-activated poly(methyl methacrylate).

Authors:  K E Schmalenberg; H M Buettner; K E Uhrich
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 12.479

3.  Disposable devices for measuring intraocular pressure: a clinical study to assess their accuracy.

Authors:  A Bhatnagar; A K Gupta
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Comparison of Luneau SA disposable and Goldmann applanation tonometer readings.

Authors:  A C J Baddon; S F Osborne; S A Quah; M Batterbury; D Wong
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2006-04-21       Impact factor: 3.775

5.  Goldmann applanation tonometry using sterile disposable silicone tonometer shields.

Authors:  M J Maldonado; A Rodŕiguez-Galietero; J Cano-Parra; J L Menezo; M Díaz-LLopis
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 12.079

Review 6.  Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers.

Authors:  M M Whitacre; R Stein
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  1993 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.048

7.  Accuracy of the Tonosafe disposable tonometer head compared to the Goldmann tonometer alone.

Authors:  Peter Kim; Somsak Lertsumitkul; Meaghan Clark; Leeanne Gardner; Peter Macken
Journal:  Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.207

  7 in total
  2 in total

1.  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

2.  A clinical method for estimating the modulus of elasticity of the human cornea in vivo.

Authors:  David C Pye
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.