Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Deviations between transpalpebral tonometry using TGDc-01 and Goldmann applanation tonometry depending on the IOP level

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

Abstract

Background

Recent comparisons between transpalpebral tonometry using TGDc-01 and Goldmann applanation tonometry were performed in populations with IOPs between 10 and 20 mmHg. The purpose of this study was to evaluate device deviations depending on different IOP levels (range 5–40 mmHg).

Methods

A total of 68 eyes of 68 patients were included and assigned to four IOP levels according to an initial applanation tonometry assessment: level I, <10 mmHg (n=8); level II, 10–19 mmHg (n=20); level III, 20–29 mmHg (n=20); and level IV, ≥30 mmHg (n=20). Two independent and randomized observers performed three replicate measurements per eye—observer 1 using TGDc-01 tonometry, and observer 2 using Goldmann applanation tonometry. Intraindividual deviations between measurement results were investigated concerning clinical relevance by medians and quartiles, concerning statistical significance by pairwise sign tests; p values <0.05 indicate local statistical significance.

Results

In patients with initial IOP ≥20 mmHg, TGDc-01–based tonometry significantly underestimated the IOP as based on Goldmann applanation tonometry (p<0.001). This effect increased with increasing IOP: IOP level III median difference (TGDc-01 − Goldmann) −1.3 mmHg (interquartile range, −2.5, −0.4), IOP level IV median difference −2.7 mmHg (−3.7, −1.0). In patients with initial IOP <10 mmHg, an at least gradual underestimation by TGDc-01 tonometry (p=0.219; median difference, −0.6, −1.6, 0) was observed. A total 18% of patients showed device deviations >±3 mmHg, and even 35% of those patients with initial IOP ≥30 mmHg.

Conclusions

TGDc-01–based tonometry demonstrated an increasing underestimation of IOP with increasing IOP levels when compared with the current standard method of Goldmann applanation tonometry.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Altman DG, Bland JM (1983) Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 32:307–317

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amm M, Hedderich J (2003) Transpalpebral tonometry with a digital tonometer in healthy eyes and after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmologe 100[Suppl 1]:S68

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Doughty MJ, Zaman ML (2000) Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol 44(5):367–408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Frenkel REP, Hong YJ, Shin DH (1988) Comparison of the Tono-Pen to the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Arch Ophthalmol 106:750–753

    Google Scholar 

  6. Goldmann H, Schmidt T (1957) Über Applanationstonometrie. Ophthalmologica 134:221–242

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Iester M, Mermoud A, Achache F, Roy S (2001) New TonoPen XL: comparison with the Goldmann tonometer. Eye 15:52–58

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kao SF, Lichter PR, Bergstrom PJ et al (1987) Clinical comparison of the oculab tono-pen to the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Ophthalmology 94:1541–1544

    Google Scholar 

  9. Krummenauer F, Storkebaum K, Dick HB (2003) Graphic representation of data resulting from measurement comparison trials in cataract and refractive surgery. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 34:240–244

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lösch A, Scheuerle AE, Mackensen F, Pfirmann M, Bauer A, Martin M, Becker M (2003) Measurements of intraocular pressure using TGDc-01 and applanation tonometry. Ophthalmologe 100[Suppl 1]:S67

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mendelsohn AD, Forster RK, Mendelsohn SL, Dennis JJ, Heideman DG, Levine IK, Parel JM, Di Maio JM (1987) Comparative tonometric measurements of eye bank eyes. Cornea 6(3):219–225

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moses RA (1958) The Goldmann applanation tonometer. Am J Ophthalmol 46:865–869

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moses RA, Liu CH (1968) Repeated applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 66:89–91

    Google Scholar 

  14. Motolko MA, Feldman F, Hyde M, Hudy D (1982) Sources of variability in the results of applanation tonometry. Can J Ophthalmol 17(3):93–95

    Google Scholar 

  15. Müller A, Lang GE, Kampmeier J (2003) Prospective comparison of the tonometer TGDc-01 with the Goldmann applanation tonometry and the non-contact tonometry PT 100. Ophthalmologe 100[Suppl 1]:S67

    Google Scholar 

  16. Phelps CD, Phelps GK (1976) Measurement of intraocular pressure: a study of its reproducibility. Graefe Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 198:39–43

    Google Scholar 

  17. Quigley HA, Langham ME (1975) Comparative intraocular pressure measurements with the pneumotonograph and Goldmann tonometer. Am J Ophthalmol 80:266–273

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rombold F, Thiel M, Neubauer AS, Hirneiß C, Kampik A (2003) Evaluation of the new mobile TGDc-01 tonometer and comparison with the Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthalmologe 100[Suppl 1]:S68

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sandner D, Pillunat LE, Kostov S (2003) Measurement of the intraocular pressure with the “Eyelid Tonometer”-TGD c-01 in comparison to applanation and pneumotonometry. Ophthalmologe 100[Suppl 1]:S68

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schmidt T (1960) The clinical application of the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Am J Ophtalmol 49:967–978

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shields MB (1982) The Intraocular pressure. In: Shields MB (ed) A study guide for glaucoma. Williams and Wilkins: Baltimore, pp 56–60, 141–143, 163

    Google Scholar 

  22. Shimmyo M, Ross AJ, Moy A, Mostafavi R (2003) Intraocular pressure, Goldmann applanation tension, corneal thickness, and corneal curvature in Caucasians, Asians, Hispanics and African Americans. Am J Ophthalmol 136:603–613

    Google Scholar 

  23. Smith R (1979) Applanation tonometry without fluorescence (correspondence). Am J Ophthalmol 87:583

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sudesh S, Moseley J, Thompson JR (1993) Accuracy of Goldmann tonometry in clinical practice. Acta Ophthalmologica 71:185–188

    Google Scholar 

  25. Troost R, Vogel A, Beck S, Schwenn O, Grus F, Pfeiffer N (2001) Clinical comparison of two intraocular pressure measurement methods: SmartLens dynamic observing tonography versus Goldmann. Graefe Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 239(12):889–892

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vogel A, Beck S, Schwenn O, Grus F, Krummenauer F, Pfeiffer N (2001) Reproduzierbarkeit der Messung von okulärer Pulsamplitude und intraokularem Druck mittels SmartLens. Ophthalmologe 98:944–949

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany

    Annette Troost & Kathrin Specht

  2. Department of Medical Biometry, Epidemiology and Informatics, Johannes Gutenberg University, Obere Zahlbacher Str. 69, 55131, Mainz, Germany

    Frank Krummenauer

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Allgemeinkrankenhaus Barmbek (AKB), Rübenkamp 148, 20309, Hamburg, Germany

    Sung Hyun Yun

  4. Department of Ophthalmology, Bürgerhospital Frankfurt am Main, Nibelungenallee 37-41, 60318, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Oliver Schwenn

Authors
  1. Annette Troost
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathrin Specht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Krummenauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sung Hyun Yun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Oliver Schwenn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annette Troost.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Troost, A., Specht, K., Krummenauer, F. et al. Deviations between transpalpebral tonometry using TGDc-01 and Goldmann applanation tonometry depending on the IOP level. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243, 853–858 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-005-1142-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-005-1142-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation