Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Goldmann applanation and dynamic contour tonometry in a population of Mexican open-angle glaucoma patients

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with Goldmann applanation (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in a Mexican population. 40 glaucoma patients were included in this cross-sectional observational cohort study. IOP measurements were performed in the following order: DCT, ultrasonic pachymetry and GAT, with a 5-minute difference between each measurement, between 8 am and 2 pm. Only DCT measurements of good quality (Q ≤ 3) were accepted. GAT measurements were made three times with the same Goldmann tonometer, previously checked for calibration errors, and the mean was used for statistical purposes. The IOP (mean [standard deviation], 95 % confidence interval [CI]) measured with the Goldmann tonometer (13.2 [2.4], 12.4–14.0 mmHg) was significantly lower than that obtained with the DCT (18.4 [3.3], 17.0–19.2 mmHg), p < 0.0001. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between CCT and IOP measured with GAT and DCT were (r = 0.24, 95 % CI = 0.07–0.52, p = 0.133) and (r = 0.13, 95 % CI = –0.19 to 0.43, p = 0.412), respectively. The concordance correlation coefficient between GAT and DCT was r c = 0.3, 95 % CI = 0.17–0.41). DCT seems to overestimate the IOP as compared to GAT. Additionally, although there was a good correlation between the IOP measurements assessed with either GAT or DCT, the agreement was poor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Herndon LW (2006) Measuring IOP: adjustments for corneal thickness and new technologies. Curr Opin Ophthalmol V17(2):115–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. ElMallah MK, Asrani SG (2008) New ways to measure intraocular pressure. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 19:122–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chihara E (2008) Major review: assessment of true intraocular pressure: the gap between theory and practical data. Surv Ophthalmol 53:203–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Goldmann H, Schmidt T (1957) Uber applanationstonometrie. Ophthalmologica 134:221–242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J, Bostrom A, Nee M, Stamper RL (2005) Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relationship to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol 123:1532–1537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Copt RP, Thomas R, Mermoud A (1999) Corneal thickness in ocular hypertension, primary open-angle glaucoma, and normal tension glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 117:14–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Boehm AG, Weber A, Pillunat LE, Koch R, Spoerl E (2008) Dynamic contour tonometry in comparison to intracameral IOP measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:2472–2477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kanngiesser HE, Kniestedt C, Robert YCA (2005) Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer. J Glaucoma 14:344–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hodapp E, Parrish R, Anderson D (1993) Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. Mosby-Year Book, St Louis

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:255–268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lin LI (2000) A note on the concordance correlation coefficient. Biometrics 56:324–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Barleon L, Hoffman EM, Berres M, Pfeiffer N, Grus FH (2006) Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients and healthy subjects. Am J Ophthalmol 142:583–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pache M, Wilmsmeyer S, Lautebach S, Funk J (2005) Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldman applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:763–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Herdener S, Pache M, Lautebach S, Funk J (2007) Dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) versus Goldman applanation tonometry (GAT) – a comparison of agreement and reproducibility. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245:1027–1030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Brusini P (2007) Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the TonoPen, and Goldman applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85:272–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Francis B, Hsieh A, Lai MY, Chopra V, Pena F, Azen S, Varma R, Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group (2007) Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Ophthalmology 114:20–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Halkiadakis I, Patsea E, Chatzimichali K, Skouriotis S, Chalkidou S, Amariotakis G et al (2009) Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma practice. Acta Ophthalmol 87(3):323–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Vico E, Fernandez-Vidal A, Benitez del Castillo JM, Wasfi M et al (2006) Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and goldmann tonometry. Ophthalmology 113(12):2156–2162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL (2004) Dynamic contour tonometry: a comparative study on human cadaver eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 122(9):1287–1293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA (2003) Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:3790–3794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Siganos DS, Papastergiou GI, Moedas C (2004) Assessment of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer in monitoring intraocular pressure in unoperated eyes and eyes after LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:746–751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ku JY, Danesh-Meyer HV, Craig JP et al (2006) Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Eye (Lond) 20:191–198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Doyle A, Lachkar Y (2005) Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldman applanation tonometry over a wide range of central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma 14:288–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kamppeter BA, Jonas JB (2005) Dynamic contour tonometry for intraocular pressure measurement. Am J Ophthalmol 140:318–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kotecha A, White ET, Shewry JM et al (2005) The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol 89:1572–1575

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hager A, Loge K, Schroeder B, Füllhas MO, Wiegand W (2008) Effect of central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis on tonometry as measured by dynamic contour tonometry, ocular response analyzer, and Goldmann tonometry in glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma 17:361–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Association for Preventing Blindness in Mexico (Dr. Luis Sanchez Bulnes Hospital), Mexico City, Mexico

    J. Jimenez-Roman, F. Gil-Carrasco, O. Albis-Donado & J. D. De la Torre-Tovar

  2. Science & Sports Research, Ames, La Coruña, Spain

    A. Martinez

  3. Vicente García Torres 46, San Lucas, Coyoacán, 04030, Mexico, DF, Mexico

    J. Jimenez-Roman

Authors
  1. J. Jimenez-Roman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Gil-Carrasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Martinez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. Albis-Donado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. D. De la Torre-Tovar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Jimenez-Roman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jimenez-Roman, J., Gil-Carrasco, F., Martinez, A. et al. Comparison of Goldmann applanation and dynamic contour tonometry in a population of Mexican open-angle glaucoma patients. Int Ophthalmol 33, 221–225 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-012-9674-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-012-9674-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation