Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

IOP: Instruments to Measure IOP

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Pearls of Glaucoma Management

  • 1378 Accesses

Abstract

Elevated intraocular pressure was first noted to be associated with blindness in the tenth century by an Arabic physician, At-Tabari, and was redescribed in 1622 as being associated with what came to be known as glaucoma by Richard Bannister [1]. Until the late nineteenth century, pressure was estimated by palpation through the eyelid – at best, a way to determine if the intraocular pressure (IOP) is low, medium, high, or very high. Obviously, a way to actually measure IOP was needed if glaucomatous conditions were to be diagnosed and treated effectively. This is especially true now that efficacy of lowering IOP in both ocular hypertension and glaucoma has been firmly established by large, randomized studies [2–7].

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Damji K and Epstein D. History of outflow resistance. In Van-Buskirk M and Shields B (eds), 100 Years of Progress in Glaucoma. 1997, Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Collaborative Initial Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of normal-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;126:498–505.

    Google Scholar 

  3. AGIS (Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study) Investigators. 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;130:429–40.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120: 1268–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al.The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:701–13; discussion 829–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, et al Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology 2001;108:1943–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, et al Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:48–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schiøtz H. Ein neues Tonometer. Arch f Augenh 1905; LII:part IV.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goldmann H. Un nouveau tonometre d’applanation. Bull Soc Ophtalmol Fr 1955;67:474–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Goldmann H, Schmidt T. On applanation tonography. Ophthalmologica 1965;150(1):65–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. MacKay RS, Marg E. Fast, automatic, electronic tonometers based on an exact theory. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 1959;37:495–507.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaufman HE, Wind CA, Waltman SR. Validity of Mackay-Marg electronic applanation tonometer in patients with scarred irregular corneas. Am J Ophthalmol 1970;69(6):1003–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Frenkel RE, Hong YJ, Shin DH. Comparison of the Tono-Pen to the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Arch Ophthal­mol 1988;106(6):750–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kao SF, Lichter PR, Bergstrom TJ, et al Clinical comparison of the Oculab Tono-Pen to the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Ophthalmology 1987;94(12):1541–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Forbes JM, Pico GJ, Grolman B. A non-contact applanation tonometer. Description and clinical evaluation. Arch Ophthal­mol 1974;91(2):134–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Moseley MJ, Thompson JR, Deutsch J, et al Comparison of the Keeler Pulsair 2000 non-contact tonometer with Goldmann applanation. Eye 1993;7 (Pt 1):127–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31(1):156–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Congdon NG, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, Grover D, Quigley HA. Central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis associated with glaucoma damage. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 141(5):868–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kanngiesser H, Kniestedt C, Robert YC. Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer. J Glaucoma 2005;14(5):344–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kniestedt C, Punjabi O, Lin,S, Stamper R. Tonometry through the ages. Surv Ophthalmol 2008;53(6):568–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Duba I, Wirthlin AC. Dynamic contour tonometry for post-LASIK intraocular pressure measurements. Klin Mbl Augenheilkd 2004;221(5):347–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kampetter BA, Jonas JB. Dynamic contour tonometry for intraocular pressure measurement. Am J Ophthalmol 2005; 140(2):318–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophth Vis Sci 2003;44(9): 3790–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J, et al Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relation to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123(11):1532–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ku JY, Danesh-Meyer HV, Craig JP, et al Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Eye 2006; 20(2):191–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Dynamic contour tonometry: a comparative study on human cadaver eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122(9):1287–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry compared with applanation tonometry in human cadaver eyes of different hydration states. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005;243(4):359–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Boehm AG, Weber A, Spoerl E, Koch R, Pillunat LE. Dynamic contour tonometry in comparison to intracameral IOP measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49(6): 2472–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Meyer MW, Gockeln R, Hoy L, Meyer A, Erb C. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements with the digital tonometer TGDc-01 ‘PRA’ and the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Ophthalmic Res 2004;36(5):250–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Troost A, Specht K, Krummenauer F, et al Deviations between transpalpebral tonometry using TGDc-01 and Goldmann applanation tonometry depending on the IOP level. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005;243(9): 853–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Troost A, Yun SH, Specht K, et al Transpalpebral tonometry: reliability and comparison with Goldmann applanation tono­metry and palpation in healthy volunteers. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89(3):280–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Eisenberg DL, Sherman BG, McKeown CA, et al.Tonometry in adults and children. A manometric evaluation of pneumatonometry, applanation, and TonoPen in vitro and in vivo. Ophthalmology 1998;105:1173–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of California at San Francisco, 10 Koret Way, Room K301, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA

    Robert Stamper

Authors
  1. Robert Stamper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Stamper .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Jules Stein Eye Institute, Stein Plaza 100, Los Angeles, 90095, U.S.A.

    JoAnn A. Giaconi

  2. Jules Stein Eye Institute, Stein Plaza 100, Los Angeles, 90095, U.S.A.

    Simon K. Law

  3. Jules Stein Eye Institute, Stein Plaza 100, Los Angeles, 90095, U.S.A.

    Anne L. Coleman

  4. Jules Stein Eye Institute, Stein Plaza 100, Los Angeles, 90095, U.S.A.

    Joseph Caprioli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stamper, R. (2010). IOP: Instruments to Measure IOP. In: Giaconi, J., Law, S., Coleman, A., Caprioli, J. (eds) Pearls of Glaucoma Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68240-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68240-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-68238-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68240-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation