Literature DB >> 32618481

A Comparison of Applanation and Rebound Tonometers in Young Chicks.

Lisa A Ostrin1, Christine F Wildsoet2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the validity of and compare applanation and rebound tonometry readings of intraocular pressure in alert normal chicks from ages 3 to 45 days.
METHODS: Intraocular pressures (IOPs) were measured weekly in awake White Leghorn chicks, from ages 3-45 days (n = 22-30 per age group), with both applanation Tono-Pen and rebound TonoLab tonometers. Three repeated measurements on individual eyes were used to derive variance data for both instruments at each age. Calibration curves were also derived for each instrument and each age, weekly from ages 10-45 days (n = 3-4 per age group), from in situ manometry data collected over IOP settings of 0 to 100 mmHg in 5 mmHg steps in cannulated eyes.
RESULTS: The TonoLab showed less within measurement variability, but more variability with age, than the Tono-Pen. The coefficient of variation ranged from 3.8-8.3% for the TonoLab, compared to 11.0-19.7% for the Tono-Pen across all ages. For the youngest, 3 day-old chicks, mean IOPs recorded with the Tono-Pen and TonoLab were not significantly different (17.0 ± 5.6 and 15.2 ± 3.7 mmHg, respectively, P = .27). However, with increasing age, IOP readings significantly increased for the TonoLab (P < .001), whereas Tono-Pen readings did not. Compared to manometry settings, the Tono-Pen tended to underestimate IOPs while the TonoLab overestimated IOPs over the range 20-60 mmHg, saturating thereafter; there were also age-dependent differences for the TonoLab.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the Tono-Pen and TonoLab gave IOP readings that differed from manometry settings in normal young chicks over some or all of the ages tested. These results reinforce the importance of calibrating clinical tonometers in animal studies involving IOP as a key variable.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chick; animal model; applanation tonometry; chicken; rebound tonometry

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32618481      PMCID: PMC7779666          DOI: 10.1080/02713683.2020.1782942

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Eye Res        ISSN: 0271-3683            Impact factor:   2.424


  58 in total

1.  Effect of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurements with the pneumotonometer, Goldmann applanation tonometer, and Tono-Pen.

Authors:  Archana Bhan; Andrew C Browning; Sunil Shah; Robin Hamilton; Dinesh Dave; Harminder S Dua
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.799

2.  Correlations of structural and biochemical changes in the developing retina of the chick.

Authors:  A J COULOMBRE
Journal:  Am J Anat       Date:  1955-01

3.  Intraocular pressure measurement in mice: a comparison between Goldmann and rebound tonometry.

Authors:  C Y Kim; M H Kuehn; M G Anderson; Y H Kwon
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  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

5.  Timolol lowers intraocular pressure but does not inhibit the development of experimental myopia in chick.

Authors:  K L Schmid; M Abbott; M Humphries; K Pyne; C F Wildsoet
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.467

6.  Genesis of light-induced avian glaucoma.

Authors:  A Kinnear; J K Lauber; T A Boyd
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol       Date:  1974-11

7.  The role of the iris in chick accommodation.

Authors:  Lisa Anne Ostrin; Yue Liu; Vivian Choh; Christine F Wildsoet
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer by experienced and inexperienced tonometrists.

Authors:  L M Abraham; N C R Epasinghe; D Selva; R Casson
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2006-12-08       Impact factor: 3.775

9.  Tonometer validation and intraocular pressure reference values in the normal chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera).

Authors:  Kevin C Snyder; Andrew C Lewin; Christoph Mans; Gillian J McLellan
Journal:  Vet Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 1.644

10.  In vivo pachymetry in normal eyes of rats, mice and rabbits with the optical low coherence reflectometer.

Authors:  Dominic Schulz; Milko E Iliev; Beatrice E Frueh; David Goldblum
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 1.886

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.