Literature DB >> 20885426

Comparation of the new rebound tonometer IOPen and the Goldmann tonometer, and their relationship to corneal properties.

J Moreno-Montañés1, I Gosende, J Caire, M García-Granero.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressures (IOPs) obtained with the IOPen rebound tonometer, Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and the ocular response analyzer (ORA) and investigate the effects of corneal biomechanical properties on IOPen measurements.
METHODS: A total of 198 normal eyes were included in this cross-sectional and randomized study. Three measurements were taken using IOPen. Agreement between tonometers was calculated using the Bland and Altman limits of agreement (LoA) analysis.
RESULTS: The median IOPen IOP was 3 mm Hg below the GAT (P < 0.001), 3 mm Hg below the ORA IOP similar to Goldmann (IOPg), and 3 mm Hg below the ORA IOP corrected using corneal parameters (IOPcc)(P < 0.01). The LoA width between the IOPen and GAT IOPs varied between 13.92 (mean IOPen IOP) and 15.99 mm Hg (third IOPen measurement). The central corneal thickness (CCT) was unrelated to IOPen measurements (P > 0.05). Corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal rigidity factor (CRF) were correlated with IOPen and GAT.
CONCLUSIONS: IOPen underestimated the IOP compared with GAT and ORA. The effect of measurement quality or measurement order on IOPen was low. CCT did not affect the IOPen, but the CH and CRF did. The LoA width between the IOPen and GAT IOPs was higher than between the ORA IOPg or ORA IOPcc and GAT IOPs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20885426      PMCID: PMC3144653          DOI: 10.1038/eye.2010.137

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


  17 in total

1.  Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population.

Authors:  P Fernandes; J A Díaz-Rey; A Queirós; J M Gonzalez-Meijome; J Jorge
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Clinical evaluation of rebound tonometer.

Authors:  Leon N Davies; Hannah Bartlett; Edward A H Mallen; James S Wolffsohn
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol Scand       Date:  2006-04

3.  Rebound tonometer compared with goldmann tonometer in normal and pathologic corneas.

Authors:  Javier Moreno-Montañés; Noelia García; Ana Fernández-Hortelano; Alfredo García-Layana
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.651

4.  Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry.

Authors:  Jose M Martinez-de-la-Casa; Julian Garcia-Feijoo; Alfredo Castillo; Julian Garcia-Sanchez
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Non-invasive determination of intraocular pressure in the rat eye. Comparison of an electronic tonometer (TonoPen), and a rebound (impact probe) tonometer.

Authors:  David Goldblum; Antti Ilmari Kontiola; Thom Mittag; Bin Chen; John Danias
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-09-26       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients.

Authors:  Paolo Brusini; Maria Letizia Salvetat; Marco Zeppieri; Claudia Tosoni; Lucia Parisi
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer.

Authors:  Aachal Kotecha; Ahmed Elsheikh; Cynthia R Roberts; Haogang Zhu; David F Garway-Heath
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  The influence of corneal properties on rebound tonometry.

Authors:  Wan-sang Chui; Andrew Lam; Davie Chen; Roger Chiu
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2007-06-15       Impact factor: 12.079

9.  Reproducibility and tolerability of the ICare rebound tonometer in school children.

Authors:  Afsun Sahin; Hikmet Basmak; Leyla Niyaz; Nilgun Yildirim
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.503

10.  Effect of corneal drying on central corneal thickness.

Authors:  Volkan Dayanir; Rabia Sakarya; Fatih Ozcura; Erkin Kir; Turgay Aktunç; Bahar Seyhan Ozkan; Pinar Okyay
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.503

View more
  4 in total

1.  [Influence of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurements following Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK)].

Authors:  M K J Klamann; A-K B Maier; J Gonnermann; N Torun; P C Ruokonen
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Comparison of ICare and IOPen vs Goldmann applanation tonometry according to international standards 8612 in glaucoma patients.

Authors:  Milena Pahlitzsch; Jeanette Brünner; Johannes Gonnermann; Anna-Karina B Maier; Necip Torun; Eckart Bertelmann; Matthias Kj Klamann
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 1.779

3.  Central corneal thickness does not correlate with TonoLab-measured IOP in several mouse strains with single transgenic mutations of matricellular proteins.

Authors:  Ayan Chatterjee; Dong-Jin Oh; Min Hyung Kang; Douglas J Rhee
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 3.467

4.  Comparison of IOPen rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer at different IOP levels.

Authors:  Fereydoun Farrahi; Farideh Sharifipour; Mohammad Malekahmadi; Bahman Cheraghian
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 1.779

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.