Advertisement

Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study

  • Mona PacheEmail author
  • Sonja Wilmsmeyer
  • Sonja Lautebach
  • Jens Funk
Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Background

Various sources of error, including central corneal thickness (CCT) and structural corneal rigidity, have been proposed for Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) is a novel device designed for intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements assumed to be largely independent of CCT and corneal curvature. We compared DCT with GAT in eyes with normal corneas of various thickness.

Methods

We prospectively measured IOP using DCT and GAT in random order in 100 eyes of 100 subjects (M:F=46:54; mean age 42±19, range 23–88 years).

Results

Mean DCT values were about 1mmHg higher than GAT readings (16±3 vs 15±3 mmHg, p=0.001). Bland–Altman analysis of individual pairs of DCT and GAT measurements revealed a bias of –1.0 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI): ±1.2]. Neither GAT nor DCT showed a significant correlation with CCT (533±48, range 399–641 μm).

Conclusions

In eyes with normal corneas, DCT allows suitable and reliable IOP measurements which are in good concordance with GAT. Comparison of DCT with intracameral manometry is desirable in the future.

Keywords

Intraocular pressure Pascal dynamic contour tonometry Goldmann applanation tonometry Central corneal thickness Pachymetry Glaucoma 

References

  1. 1.
    Argus WA (1995) Ocular hypertension and central corneal thickness. Ophthalmology 102:1810–1812Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brandt JD (2004) Corneal thickness in glaucoma screening, diagnosis, and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 15:85–89Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bron AM, Creuzot-Garcher C, Goudeau-Boutillon S, d’Athis P (1999) Falsely elevated intraocular pressure due to increased central corneal thickness. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 237:220–224Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Copt RP, Thomas R, Mermoud A (1999) Corneal thickness in ocular hypertension, primary open-angle glaucoma, and normal tension glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 117:14–16Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duba I, Wirthlin AC (2004) Dynamic contour tonometry for post-LASIK intraocular pressure measurements. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 221:347–350Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duch S, Serra A, Castanera J, Abos R, Quintana M (2001) Tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis treatment. J Glaucoma 10:261–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ehlers N, Hansen FK (1974) Central corneal thickness in low-tension glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 52:740–746Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S (1975) Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 53:34–43Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehlers N, Hansen FK, Aasved H (1975) Biometric correlations of corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 53:652–659Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Emara B, Probst LE, Tingey DP, Kennedy DW, Willms LJ, Machat J (1998) Correlation of intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness in normal myopic eyes and after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:1320–1325Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feltgen N, Leifert D, Funk J (2001) Correlation between central corneal thickness, applanation tonometry, and direct intracameral IOP readings. Br J Ophthalmol 85:85–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fournier AV, Podtetenev M, Lemire J, Thompson P, Duchesne R, Perreault C, Chehade N, Blondeau P (1998) Intraocular pressure change measured by Goldmann tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:905–910Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gimeno JA, Munoz LA, Valenzuela LA, Molto FJ, Rahhal MS (2000) Influence of refraction on tonometric readings after photorefractive keratectomy and laser assisted in situ keratomileusis. Cornea 19:512–516Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldmann H, Schmidt T (1957) Über Applanationstonometrie. Ophthalmologica 134:221–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldmann H, Schmidt T (1957) Der Rigiditätskoeffizient (Friedenwald). Ophthalmologica 133:330–335; discussion, 335–336Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldmann H, Schmidt T (1961) Weiterer Beitrag zur Applanationstonometrie. Ophthalmologica 141:441–456Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, Parrish RK II, Wilson MR, Kass MA (2002) The ocular hypertension treatment study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 120:714–720Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson M, Kass MA, Moses RA, Grodzki WJ (1978) Increased corneal thickness simulating elevated intraocular pressure. Arch Ophthalmol 96:664–665PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA (2003) Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:3790–3794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mardelli PG, Piebenga LW, Whitacre MM, Siegmund KD (1997) The effect of excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy on intraocular pressure measurements using the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Ophthalmology 104:945–948; discussion 949Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Park HJ, Uhm KB, Hong C (2001) Reduction in intraocular pressure after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:303–309Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rashad KM, Bahnassy AA (2001) Changes in intraocular pressure after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Refract Surg 17:420–427Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosa N, Cennamo G (2001) Goldmann applanation tonometry after PRK and LASIK. Cornea 20:905–906Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shah S, Chatterjee A, Mathai M, Kelly SP, Kwartz J, Henson D, McLeod D (1999) Relationship between corneal thickness and measured intraocular pressure in a general ophthalmology clinic. Ophthalmology 106:2154–2160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stodtmeister R (1998) Applanation tonometry and correction according to corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 76:319–324Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tomlinson A, Leighton DA (1972) Ocular dimensions in low tension glaucoma compared with open-angle glaucoma and the normal. Br J Ophthalmol 56:97–105Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whitacre MM, Stein R (1993) Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol 38:1–30Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Whitacre MM, Stein RA, Hassanein K (1993) The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 115:592–596PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wolfs RC, Klaver CC, Vingerling JR, Grobbee DE, Hofman A, de Jong PT (1997) Distribution of central corneal thickness and its association with intraocular pressure: the Rotterdam Study. Am J Ophthalmol 123:767–772PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zadok D, Tran DB, Twa M, Carpenter M, Schanzlin DJ (1999) Pneumotonometry versus Goldmann tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 25:1344–1348Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mona Pache
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sonja Wilmsmeyer
    • 1
  • Sonja Lautebach
    • 1
  • Jens Funk
    • 1
  1. 1.University Eye ClinicUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations