Intraocular pressure measurement with Corvis ST in comparison with applanation tonometry and Tomey non-contact tonometry
- 48 Downloads
Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement can be performed with different methods. Newer methods have to be compared to the standard method, the Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). We herein compare two air-puff tonometers, the non-contact tonometer (Tomey NCT) and the Corvis ST (CST) with GAT in eyes with a broad spectrum of IOP.
Two hundred and forty-nine eyes of 249 patients (with diagnosis of either glaucoma or ocular hypertension) were included in this monocenter prospective cohort study. Each eye underwent IOP measurements via GAT, NCT and CST. Bland–Altman plots were calculated to compare the different methods in the three groups. Paired t tests were used for statistical comparison between the three measurement methods. The difference between the different methods was tested on correlation against central corneal thickness (CCT).
Mean IOP in GAT was 17.6 mmHg (standard deviation (SD) 5.9), 16.3 mmHg (SD 5.6) in NCT and 18.0 mmHg (SD 5.5) in CST. Comparisons between GAT and CST vs. NCT showed significant differences (p < 0.001), while GAT vs. CST showed no significant difference (p = 0.1162). Mean CCT was 538.7 µm (SD 35.1).
Mean values of GAT and CST show comparable results. However, both GAT and CST differ significantly from NCT. NCT shows lower IOP values compared to both other methods.
KeywordsGlaucoma Intraocular pressure Corvis ST NCT GAT
- 1.Goldmann H, Schmidt T (1957) Applanation tonometry. Ophthalmol J Int Ophtalmol Int J Ophthalmol Z Augenheilkd 134:221–242Google Scholar
- 6.Lomoriello DS, Lombardo M, Tranchina L et al (2011) Repeatability of intra-ocular pressure and central corneal thickness measurements provided by a non-contact method of tonometry and pachymetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:429–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1550-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Core Team R (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- 12.Smedowski A, Weglarz B, Tarnawska D et al (2014) Comparison of three intraocular pressure measurement methods including biomechanical properties of the CorneaComparison of three IOP measurement methods. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55:666–673. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13-13172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar