Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in relation to central corneal thickness in primary congenital glaucoma

  • Glaucoma
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), and to investigate their relationship to central corneal thickness (CCT) in primary congenital glaucoma (PCG) eyes.

Methods

Thirty-one eyes of 31 PCG patients (25.7 ± 7.2 years old) were examined. PCG was defined as elevated IOP, enlarged corneal diameter (buphthalmos), Haab’s striae and abnormal findings at gonioscopy. The mean of three measurements of GAT, DCT (quality scores 1 and 2), and CCT were obtained and assessed for agreement by means of Bland–Altman plot and for Spearman correlation test.

Results

Mean CCT was 534 ± 72.3 μm (range: 430 to 610 μm). Mean IOP measurements were 15.1 ± 4.2 mmHg (range: 5.5 to 22.7 mmHg) for DCT and 14.5 ± 5.6 mmHg (range: 7.0 to 34.0 mmHg) for GAT (P = 0.244). Spearman correlation tests showed that IOP difference (DCT − GAT) was not correlated with CCT (r 2 = 0.023, P = 0.417). IOP measurements by DCT were weakly but statistically correlated with those obtained with GAT (r2 = 0.213, P = 0.0089). Bland–Altman analysis revealed poor agreement between DCT and GAT readings, considering the 95 % confidence intervals of ±10.45 mmHg.

Conclusions

The differences between DCT and GAT readings were not influenced by CCT in this series of patients. Considering the weak correlation and the poor agreement observed between GAT and DCT measurements and that they both may be affected by corneal biomechanical changes, these methods should not be used interchangeably, and may possibly give no meaningful IOP values in PCG patients.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gilbert CE, Rahi JS, Quinn GE (2003) Visual impairment and blindness in children, 2nd edn. Edward Arnold Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Richardson KT Jr, Ferguson WJ Jr, Shaffer RN (1967) Long-term functional results in infantile glaucoma. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 71(5):833–837

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shiose Y (1990) Intraocular pressure: new perspectives. Surv Ophthalmol 34(6):413–435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Brandt JD, Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Lin SC, Alexander MY, Kass MA, Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group (2008) Changes in central corneal thickness over time: the ocular hypertension treatment study. Ophthalmology 115(9):1550–1556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brandt JD, Beiser JA, Kass MA, Gordon MO (2001) Central corneal thickness in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS). Ophthalmology 108(10):1779–1788

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Krueger RR, Ramos-Esteban JC (2007) How might corneal elasticity help us understand diabetes and intraocular pressure? J Refract Surg 23(1):85–88

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Iester M, Mete M, Figus M, Frezzotti P (2009) Incorporating corneal pachymetry into the management of glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg 35(9):1623–1628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, Parrish RK 2nd, Wilson MR, Kass MA (2002) The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 120(6):714–720

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wickham L, Edmunds B, Murdoch IE (2005) Central corneal thickness: will one measurement suffice? Ophthalmology 112(2):225–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jordao ML, Lupinacci AP, Ferreira EL, Enomoto IJ, Costa VP (2009) Influence of age, central corneal thickness, and quality score on dynamic contour tonometry. Eye 23(6):1364–1369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hsu SY, Sheu MM, Hsu AH, Wu KY, Yeh JI, Tien JN, Tsai RK (2009) Comparisons of intraocular pressure measurements: Goldmann applanation tonometry, noncontact tonometry, Tono-Pen tonometry, and dynamic contour tonometry. Eye 23(7):1582–1588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kanngiesser HE, Kniestedt C, Robert YC (2005) Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer. J Glaucoma 14(5):344–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. Duba I, Wirthlin AC (2004) Dynamic contour tonometry for post-LASIK intraocular pressure measurements. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 221(5):347–350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Goldmann H, Schmidt T (1957) Applanation tonometry. Ophthalmologica 134(4):221–242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lopes JE, Wilson RR, Alvim HS, Shields CL, Shields JA, Calhoun J, Fontanarosa J, Steinmann WC (2007) Central corneal thickness in pediatric glaucoma. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 44(2):112–117

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kiskis AA, Markowitz SN, Morin JD (1985) Corneal diameter and axial length in congenital glaucoma. Can J Ophthalmol 20(3):93–97

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ali M, McKibbin M, Booth A, Parry DA, Jain P, Riazuddin SA, Hejtmancik JF, Khan SN, Firasat S, Shires M, Gilmour DF, Towns K, Murphy AL, Azmanov D, Tournev I, Cherninkova S, Jafri H, Raashid Y, Toomes C, Craig J, Mackey DA, Kalaydjieva L, Riazuddin S, Ingleheam CF (2009) Null mutations in LTBP2 cause primary congenital glaucoma. Am J Hum Genet 84(5):664–671

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Thiagalingam S, Jakobiec FA, Chen T, Michaud N, Colby KA, Walton DS (2009) Corneal anomalies in newborn primary congenital glaucoma. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 46(4):241–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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(4):288–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ku JY, Danesh-Meyer HV, Craig JP, Gamble GD, McGhee CN (2006) Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Eye 20(2):191–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kotecha A, White E, Schlottmann PG, Garway-Heath DF (2010) Intraocular pressure measurement precision with the Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometers. Ophthalmology 117(4):730–737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kirwan C, O'Keefe M, Lanigan B (2006) Corneal hysteresis and intraocular pressure measurement in children using the Reichert ocular response analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol 142(6):990–992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Luce DA (2005) Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 31(1):156–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mangouritsas G, Mourtzoukos S, Mantzounis A, Alexopoulos L (2011) Comparison of Goldmann and Pascal tonometry in relation to corneal hysteresis and central corneal thickness in nonglaucomatous eyes. Clin Ophthalmol 5:1071–1077

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Whitacre MM, Stein R (1993) Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol 38(1):1–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Oh JH, Yoo C, Kim YY, Kim HM, Song JS (2009) The effect of contact lens-induced corneal edema on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 247(3):371–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Financial support

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jayter Silva Paula.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jordão, M.L.S., Costa, V.P., Rodrigues, M.L.V. et al. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in relation to central corneal thickness in primary congenital glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251, 117–121 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-012-2027-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-012-2027-3

Keywords

Navigation