Literature DB >> 31201805

Validation of the Icare® TONOVET plus rebound tonometer in normal rabbit eyes.

Shawna Gloe1, Abby Rothering1, Julie A Kiland1, Gillian J McLellan2.   

Abstract

To determine the accuracy and precision of the Icare® TONOVET Plus rebound tonometer for measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) in normal rabbit eyes, as well as compare it to three other commercially available tonometers: the Icare® TONOVET (TV01), Tono-Pen Vet™, and Tono-Pen AVIA Vet™. The anterior chambers of both eyes of three New Zealand White rabbits were cannulated, post-mortem. IOP was measured using each of the above four tonometers at manometric pressures ranging between 5 mmHg and 70 mmHg. Data were analyzed by linear regression, ANOVA, and Bland-Altman plots. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered significant for all statistical tests. IOP values obtained with the TONOVET Plus (in 'lapine' mode) were significantly closer to manometric IOP than those obtained with the other tonometers tested. The TV01 (in 'd' dog setting) and Tono-Pen AVIA Vet™ were significantly more accurate compared to the Tono-Pen Vet™. All tonometers had high levels of precision, though the TONOVET Plus and TV01 were significantly more precise compared to the Tono-Pen AVIA Vet™. All tonometers tended to underestimate IOP, particularly at high pressures, however the TONOVET Plus was highly correlated with manometric IOP in the clinically relevant range of 5-50 mmHg. The TONOVET Plus is an appropriate choice of instrument for measuring IOP in rabbit eyes in both research and clinical settings.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Glaucoma; Intraocular pressure; Rabbit; Rebound tonometer

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31201805      PMCID: PMC6698397          DOI: 10.1016/j.exer.2019.107698

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Eye Res        ISSN: 0014-4835            Impact factor:   3.467


  17 in total

1.  Comparison of simultaneous readings of intraocular pressure in rabbits using Perkins handheld, Tono-Pen XL, and TonoVet tonometers.

Authors:  Giedrius Kalesnykas; Hannu Uusitalo
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-11-21       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Correlations between corneal biomechanical properties measured with the ocular response analyzer and ICare rebound tonometry.

Authors:  Jorge Manuel Martins Jorge; Jose M González-Méijome; Antonio Queirós; Paulo Fernandes; Manuel A Parafita
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  The iCare rebound tonometer: comparisons with Goldmann tonometry, and influence of central corneal thickness.

Authors:  Ali Poostchi; Robert Mitchell; Simon Nicholas; Gordon Purdie; Anthony Wells
Journal:  Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.207

4.  Evaluation of a rebound tonometer (Tonovet) in clinically normal cat eyes.

Authors:  Elina Rusanen; Marion Florin; Michael Hässig; Bernhard M Spiess
Journal:  Vet Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.644

5.  Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and goldmann tonometry.

Authors:  Jose M Martinez-de-la-Casa; Julian Garcia-Feijoo; Eva Vico; Ana Fernandez-Vidal; Jose M Benitez del Castillo; Mohamed Wasfi; J Garcia-Sanchez
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2006-09-25       Impact factor: 12.079

6.  [Clinical evaluation of the Tonovet® reboundtonometer in dogs and cats considering potential errors in handling].

Authors:  L von Spiessen; J Karck; K Rohn; A Meyer-Lindenberg
Journal:  Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 0.596

7.  In vitro and in vivo comparison of applanation tonometry and rebound tonometry in dogs.

Authors:  Noriyuki Nagata; Masashi Yuki; Takashi Hasegawa
Journal:  J Vet Med Sci       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 1.267

8.  Comparison of rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry and correlation with central corneal thickness.

Authors:  M E Iliev; D Goldblum; K Katsoulis; C Amstutz; B Frueh
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-05-03       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  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

10.  Repeatability, reproducibility and agreement of intraocular pressure measurement in rabbits by the TonoVet and Tono-Pen.

Authors:  Di Ma; Chong-Bo Chen; Jiajian Liang; Zhihao Lu; Haoyu Chen; Mingzhi Zhang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  3 in total

1.  Validation and comparison of four handheld tonometers in normal ex vivo canine eyes.

Authors:  Andrea L Minella; Julie A Kiland; Shawna Gloe; Gillian J McLellan
Journal:  Vet Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 1.644

2.  Comparison of two rebound tonometers in healthy horses.

Authors:  Minna P Mustikka; Elina M Pietilä; Anna K Mykkänen; Thomas S C Grönthal
Journal:  Vet Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-09-04       Impact factor: 1.644

3.  Comparative intraocular pressure measurements using three different rebound tonometers through in an ex vivo analysis and clinical trials in canine eyes.

Authors:  Jaeho Shim; Seonmi Kang; Yoonji Park; Sunhyo Kim; Seokmin Go; Eunji Lee; Kangmoon Seo
Journal:  Vet Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 1.644

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.