Literature DB >> 18369376

Poor agreement between Goldmann and Pascal tonometry in eyes with extreme pachymetry.

E Milla1, S Duch, O Buchacra, C Masuet.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (PDCT) with the standard Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and to correlate them with the central corneal thickness (CCT) in a non-glaucomatous population.
METHODS: We prospectively measured IOP using PDCT and GAT in random order in 100 normal eyes. CCT was analysed with an ultrasonic pachymeter in each case. Statistical analysis of baseline and stratified data included intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Lin correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis to evaluate the agreement between both techniques.ResultsGAT was used first in 51 eyes and PDCT in 48 cases. Mean IOP was 14.8 mm Hg with GAT and 20.3 mm Hg with PDCT. Mean pachymetry was 553.23 micrometres (microm) (SD: 4.7 microm). Global agreement of IOP between GAT and PDCT was 0.09 by ICC and 0.170 by Lin correlation. When CCT values ranged between 540 and 545 microm, the agreement between both tonometers was optimal (ICC 0.54 and Lin 0.61). Outside these pachymetry values, agreement between both tonometers diminished dramatically.
CONCLUSION: Statistically significant agreement between both devices was reached only at intermediate pachymetry readings in contrast with other studies that show excellent global agreement between GAT and PDCT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18369376     DOI: 10.1038/eye.2008.90

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


  8 in total

Review 1.  Tonometers-which one should I use?

Authors:  Kanza Aziz; David S Friedman
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  Dependence of dynamic contour and Goldmann applanation tonometries on peripheral corneal thickness.

Authors:  Federico Saenz-Frances; Claudia Sanz-Pozo; Lara Borrego-Sanz; Luis Jañez; Laura Morales-Fernandez; Jose Maria Martinez-de-la-Casa; Julian Garcia-Sanchez; Julian Garcia-Feijoo; Enrique Santos-Bueso
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 1.779

3.  Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in eyes with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP): comparison in the same eyes after subsequent medical normalization of IOP.

Authors:  Chungkwon Yoo; Young Sub Eom; Yong Yeon Kim
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-07-22       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Evaluation of a contact lens-embedded sensor for intraocular pressure measurement.

Authors:  Michael D Twa; Cynthia J Roberts; Huikai J Karol; Ashraf M Mahmoud; Paul A Weber; Robert H Small
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Differences between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Dynamic Contour Tonometry following Trabeculectomy.

Authors:  Efstathios T Detorakis; Emilia Grammenandi; Ioannis G Pallikaris; Miltiadis K Tsilimbaris
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 1.909

6.  Detecting IOP Fluctuations in Glaucoma Patients.

Authors:  Brenda Nuyen; Kaweh Mansouri
Journal:  Open Ophthalmol J       Date:  2016-02-29

7.  Tonometry in corneal edema after cataract surgery: dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry.

Authors:  Anne Herr; Andreas Remky; Thalia Hirsch; Corinna Rennings; Niklas Plange
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-05-03

8.  [Intraocular pressure elevation after vitrectomy-Goldmann applanation tonometry measures lower intraocular pressure than dynamic contour tonometry].

Authors:  Sebastian Bäurle; Anja Viestenz; Berthold Seitz; Arne Viestenz
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 1.059

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.