PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements taken with Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), the TonoPen and the Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements taken with Pascal DCT and the TonoPen was evaluated. METHODS: One eye in each of 101 consecutive patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) underwent ultrasonic CCT measurement and IOP evaluation with GAT, Pascal DCT and the TonoPen in random order. The agreement between results from Pascal DCT and the TonoPen and those of GAT was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. The deviation of Pascal DCT and TonoPen readings from GAT values, corrected for CCT, was calculated and correlated to CCT using a linear regression model. RESULTS: The mean of the differences in IOP measurements was 3.2 +/- 2.4 mmHg for Pascal DCT minus GAT readings and 0.5 +/- 4.5 mmHg for TonoPen minus GAT readings. The 95% confidence interval of differences in IOP measurements was higher between TonoPen and GAT readings (- 6 to 7 mmHg) than between Pascal and GAT readings (0.1-6.8 mmHg). Pascal DCT significantly overestimated IOP compared with GAT, especially for higher IOP readings. Bland-Altman scatterplots showed reasonable inter-method agreement between Pascal DCT and GAT measurements, and poor agreement between TonoPen and GAT measurements. The deviations of Pascal DCT and TonoPen readings from the corrected GAT values were both highly correlated with CCT values (linear regression analysis, p < 0.0001). The mean change in measured IOP for a 10-microm increase in CCT was 0.48 mmHg for Pascal DCT and 0.74 mmHg for the TonoPen. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement with GAT measurements was higher for Pascal DCT than for TonoPen readings; however, Pascal DCT significantly overestimated IOP values compared with GAT. Measurements of IOP obtained with both Pascal DCT and the TonoPen appeared to be influenced by CCT, and this influence appeared to be greater for the latter.
PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements taken with Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), the TonoPen and the Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements taken with Pascal DCT and the TonoPen was evaluated. METHODS: One eye in each of 101 consecutive patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) underwent ultrasonic CCT measurement and IOP evaluation with GAT, Pascal DCT and the TonoPen in random order. The agreement between results from Pascal DCT and the TonoPen and those of GAT was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. The deviation of Pascal DCT and TonoPen readings from GAT values, corrected for CCT, was calculated and correlated to CCT using a linear regression model. RESULTS: The mean of the differences in IOP measurements was 3.2 +/- 2.4 mmHg for Pascal DCT minus GAT readings and 0.5 +/- 4.5 mmHg for TonoPen minus GAT readings. The 95% confidence interval of differences in IOP measurements was higher between TonoPen and GAT readings (- 6 to 7 mmHg) than between Pascal and GAT readings (0.1-6.8 mmHg). Pascal DCT significantly overestimated IOP compared with GAT, especially for higher IOP readings. Bland-Altman scatterplots showed reasonable inter-method agreement between Pascal DCT and GAT measurements, and poor agreement between TonoPen and GAT measurements. The deviations of Pascal DCT and TonoPen readings from the corrected GAT values were both highly correlated with CCT values (linear regression analysis, p < 0.0001). The mean change in measured IOP for a 10-microm increase in CCT was 0.48 mmHg for Pascal DCT and 0.74 mmHg for the TonoPen. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement with GAT measurements was higher for Pascal DCT than for TonoPen readings; however, Pascal DCT significantly overestimated IOP values compared with GAT. Measurements of IOP obtained with both Pascal DCT and the TonoPen appeared to be influenced by CCT, and this influence appeared to be greater for the latter.
Authors: J Jimenez-Roman; F Gil-Carrasco; A Martinez; O Albis-Donado; J D De la Torre-Tovar Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 2.031