Literature DB >> 18093261

Pascal, ICare and Goldmann applanation tonometry--a comparative study.

Gauti Jóhannesson1, Per Hallberg, Anders Eklund, Christina Lindén.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements by Pascal, ICare and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), to evaluate the effects of central corneal thickness (CCT) and curvature on IOP measurement and to estimate the intra-observer variability.
METHODS: A prospective, single-centre study of 150 eyes with a wide range of pressures. Six masked IOP measurements/method; corneal thickness and curvature were studied for each eye. GAT was the reference.
RESULTS: IOPPascal and IOPICare correlated with IOPGAT (r = 0.91, 0.89). Mean ICare measurement exceeded GAT by 2 mmHg. Pascal measured higher than GAT at low IOPs and lower at high IOPs. For every 10 mmHg increase in IOP above 31 mmHg, Pascal measured 2 mmHg lower than GAT and vice versa. CCT was correlated significantly with IOPGAT (r = 0.23) and IOPICare (r = 0.43) but not with IOPPascal (P = 0.12). CCT was correlated with age. In a subgroup (>50 years), ICare and the difference between IOPGAT and IOPPascal were affected significantly by the CCT, whereas IOPGAT and IOPPascal were not. Corneal curvature was correlated significantly with IOPGAT (r = -0.27) and IOPPascal (r = -0.26) but not with IOPICare (P = 0.60). Intra-observer variability within each set of six measurements was approximately 2 mmHg, irrespective of method.
CONCLUSION: This study showed a reasonable overall correlation and concordance between the IOP obtained with the three instruments. None of the methods were completely independent of the biomechanical properties of the cornea. ICare showed a significant dependency upon CCT, whereas GAT and Pascal showed a significant dependency on corneal curvature. All methods showed intra-observer variability, which leaves room for further improvement of methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18093261     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2007.01112.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol        ISSN: 1755-375X            Impact factor:   3.761


  17 in total

1.  Evaluation of the Icare-ONE rebound tonometer as a self-measuring intraocular pressure device in normal subjects.

Authors:  Ioannis Halkiadakis; Aimilianos Stratos; George Stergiopoulos; Eleni Patsea; Sotiris Skouriotis; Panagiotis Mitropoulos; Dimitrios Papaconstantinou; Gerasimos Georgopoulos
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Effects of trabeculectomy on posture-induced intraocular pressure changes over time.

Authors:  Akira Sawada; Tetsuya Yamamoto
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Age-dependency of ocular parameters: a cross sectional study of young and elderly healthy subjects.

Authors:  G Jóhannesson; P Hallberg; K Ambarki; A Eklund; C Lindén
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Intraocular pressure measurement over soft contact lens by rebound tonometer: a comparative study.

Authors:  Senay Asik Nacaroglu; Emine Seker Un; Mehmet Giray Ersoz; Yelda Tasci
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-06-18       Impact factor: 1.779

5.  [Comparison of the iCare tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in Malawi].

Authors:  J Hohmann; M Schulze-Schwering; T Chirambo Nyaka; V Moyo; P C Kayange; D Doycheva; N H Batumba; M S Spitzer
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.059

6.  Can we trust intraocular pressure measurements in eyes with intracameral air?

Authors:  Gauti Jóhannesson; Christina Lindén; Anders Eklund; Anders Behndig; Per Hallberg
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 3.117

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

Authors:  Charlotte Renier; Thierry Zeyen; Steffen Fieuws; Sofie Vandenbroeck; Ingeborg Stalmans
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-05-25       Impact factor: 2.031

8.  Comparison of iCare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry in normal corneas and in eyes with automated lamellar and penetrating keratoplasty.

Authors:  M L Salvetat; M Zeppieri; F Miani; C Tosoni; L Parisi; P Brusini
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-03-25       Impact factor: 3.775

9.  Repeatability and reproducibility of Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometry.

Authors:  Allen Shawlun Wang; Luciana M Alencar; Robert N Weinreb; Ali Tafreshi; Sunil Deokule; Gianmarco Vizzeri; Felipe A Medeiros
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.503

10.  Does rebound tonometry probe misalignment modify intraocular pressure measurements in human eyes?

Authors:  Ian G Beasley; Deborah S Laughton; Benjamin J Coldrick; Thomas E Drew; Marium Sallah; Leon N Davies
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 1.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.