Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements between Easyton transpalpebral tonometry and Perkins, iCare iC100 and Corvis ST, and the influence of corneal and anterior scleral thickness

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements between Easyton transpalpebral tonometry and Perkins, iCare iC100 and Corvis ST. Also, to assess the influence of corneal characteristics and anterior scleral thickness (AST) on the IOP measurements.

Methods

Sixty-nine eyes from 69 healthy subjects were included. IOP was measured by Easyton, Perkins, iC100 and Corvis ST (corrected IOP, bIOP; and non-corrected IOP, IOPnct). Other variables studied were AST, axial length (AL), and Corvis parameters: Length 1, velocity 1, length 2, velocity 2, peak distance, radius, deformation amplitude, and central corneal thickness (CCT). Pearson correlation, limits of agreement (LoA), and multiple regression analysis were calculated.

Results

No significant differences in IOP between Easyton and Perkins, iC100, and bIOP were observed (all p > 0.05), being significant only between Perkins and IOPnct ( − 1.49 mmHg, p < 0.001). Bland–Altman graphs showed that the mean difference between Perkins and Easyton was 0.07 mmHg (p < 0.001), and LoA  − 7.49 to + 7.39 mmHg. Significant correlations were found between the measurements of Perkins and iC100, IOPnct, bIOP (r = 0.710, 0.628, 0.539; p < 0.001 respectively), iC100 and IOPnct, bIOP (r = 0.627, 0.513; p < 0.001, respectively). The multivariate regression analysis revealed that differences between Perkins and Easyton (adjusted R2 = 0.25) were influenced by AL (B = 1.28, p < 0.008), length 1 (B = 3.13, p < 0.018), and the radius (B = 1.26, p < 0.010). Differences between Perkins and bIOP (adjusted R2 = 0.21) were affected by the CCT (B = 0.029, p < 0.003).

Conclusions

There are no significant differences in the IOP measurements between Perkins and Easyton, iC100 or bIOP. Length 1, radius, and CCT have limited influence on these differences, while AST did not show any effect.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Krieglstein GK, Waller WK (1975) Goldmann applanation versus hand-applanation and Schiötz indentation tonometry. Albrecht von Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 194:11–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00408271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Baskett JS, Goen TM, Terry JE (1986) A comparison of Perkins and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Am Optom Assoc 57:832–834

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhang Y, Bian A, Hang Q et al (2023) Corneal biomechanical properties of various types of glaucoma and their impact on measurement of intraocular pressure. Ophthalmic Res. https://doi.org/10.1159/000530291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown L, Foulsham W, Pronin S, Tatham AJ (2018) The influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using a rebound self-tonometer. J Glaucoma 27:511–518. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000948

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tranchina L, Lombardo M, Oddone F et al (2013) Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure differences between an air-puff tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer. J Glaucoma 22:416–421. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e31824cafc9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bao F, Huang W, Zhu R et al (2020) Effectiveness of the goldmann applanation tonometer, the dynamic contour tonometer, the ocular response analyzer and the Corvis ST in measuring intraocular pressure following FS-LASIK. Curr Eye Res 45:144–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2019.1660794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Firat PG, Orman G, Doganay S, Demirel S (2013) Influence of corneal parameters in keratoconus on IOP readings obtained with different tonometers. Clin Exp Optom 96:233–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mendez-Hernandez C, Arribas-Pardo P, Cuiña-Sardiña R et al (2017) Measuring intraocular pressure in patients with keratoconus with and without intrastromal corneal ring segments. J Glaucoma 26:71–76. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bañeros-Rojas P, Martinez de la Casa JM, Arribas-Pardo P et al (2014) Comparison between Goldmann, Icare Pro and Corvis ST tonometry. Archivos de la Sociedad Espanola de Oftalmologia 89:260–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oftal.2014.02.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karlova EV (2017) Application of the tonometer for intraocular pressure measurements: EASYTON in patients in the early postoperative recovery phase following penetrating keratoplasty. In: Almagia. Clinical study report. https://almagia.com/clinical-tests/easyton-in-patients-in-the-early/. Accessed 20 Aug 2022

  11. Toker MI, Vural A, Erdogan H et al (2008) Central corneal thickness and Diaton transpalpebral tonometry. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 246:881–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-008-0769-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Doherty MD, Carrim ZI, O`Neill DP, (2012) Diaton tonometry: an assessment of validity and preference against Goldmann tonometry. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 40:171–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2011.02636.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lösch A, Scheuerle A, Rupp V et al (2005) Transpalpebral measurement of intraocular pressure using the TGDc-01 tonometer versus standard Goldmann applanation tonometry. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:313–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-004-0971-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sandner D, Böhm A, Kostov S, Pillunat L (2005) Measurement of the intraocular pressure with the “transpalpebral tonometer” TGDc-01 in comparison with applanation tonometry. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:563–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00417-004-1037-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eduard Klevtsov (2018) Bench testing of intraocular pressure tonometer TVGD-02 (“EASYTON”) to confirm accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility. In: Eurotechoptical. Accessed 21 Dec 2021

  16. Iomdina EN, Kushnarevich NY (2022) Possibilities of monitoring intraocular pressure in children using EASYTON transpalpebral tonometer. Int Ophthalmol 42:1631–1638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-02158-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C et al (2015) Corneal deformation parameters provided by the Corvis-ST pachy-tonometer in healthy subjects and glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 24:568–574. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li Y, Shi J, Duan X, Fan F (2010) Transpalpebral measurement of intraocular pressure using the Diaton tonometer versus standard Goldmann applanation tonometry. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248:1765–1770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-009-1243-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cook JA, Botello AP, Elders A et al (2012) Systematic review of the agreement of tonometers with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthalmology 119:1552–1557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.02.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cacho I, Sanchez-Naves J, Batres L et al (2015) Comparison of intraocular pressure before and after laser in situ keratomileusis refractive surgery measured with perkins tonometry, noncontact tonometry, and transpalpebral tonometry. J Ophthalmol 2015:683895. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/683895

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Troost A, Yun SH, Specht K et al (2005) Transpalpebral tonometry: reliability and comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometry and palpation in healthy volunteers. Br J Ophthalmol 89:280–283. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2004.050211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Schlote T, Landenberger H (2005) Augeninnendruckmessung mit dem transpalpebralen tonometer TGDc-01 “PRA” im vergleich zur applanationstonometrie nach Goldmann bei glaukompatienten. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 222:123–131. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-857881

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Molero-Senosiaín M, Morales-Fernández L, Saenz-Francés F et al (2020) Analysis of reproducibility, evaluation, and preference of the new iC100 rebound tonometer versus iCare PRO and Perkins portable applanation tonometry. Eur J Ophthalmol 30:1349–1355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672119878017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ye Y, Yang Y, Fan Y et al (2019) Comparison of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure obtained by Corvis ST and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma 28:922–928. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nakao Y, Kiuchi Y, Okumichi H (2020) Evaluation of biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure using Corvis ST and comparison of the Corvis ST, noncontact tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma. PLoS ONE 15:e0238395. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0238395

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Matsuura M, Murata H, Fujino Y et al (2020) Relationship between novel intraocular pressure measurement from Corvis ST and central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis. Br J Ophthalmol 104:563–568. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Leung CKS, Ye C, Weinreb RN (2013) An ultra-high-speed Scheimpflug camera for evaluation of corneal deformation response and its impact on IOP measurement. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:2885–2892. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.12-11563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mark HH, Robbins KP, Mark TL (2002) Axial length in applanation tonometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:504–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(01)01091-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Liu Q, Pang C, Liu C et al (2022) Correlations among corneal biomechanical parameters, stiffness, and thickness measured using Corvis ST and pentacam in patients with ocular hypertension. J Ophthalmol 2022:7387581. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7387581

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Shen SR, Fleming GP, Jain SG, Roberts CJ (2023) A review of corneal biomechanics and scleral stiffness in topical prostaglandin analog therapy for glaucoma. Curr Eye Res 48:172–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2022.2099903

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Gratitude to patients, and members of the ophthalmology department who contribute to patient care and research.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript. The easyton device was loaned by the company.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), Universidad Complutense, 28040, Madrid, Spain

    Liseth Salazar-Quiñones, José Ignacio Fernández-Vigo, Elena Montolío-Marzo, Javier García-Bella, Laura Morales-Fernandez, Julián García-Feijóo & José María Martínez-de-la-Casa

  2. Institute “Investigaciones Oftalmologicas Ramon Castroviejo”, Madrid, Spain

    Julián García-Feijóo & José María Martínez-de-la-Casa

  3. Research Methodological Support Unit and Preventive Department, Hospital Clínico San Carlos and “Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC)”, Madrid, Spain

    Rafael Sánchez-del-Hoyo

  4. Alberto Hurtado School of Medicine, Peruana Cayetano Heredia University, Lima, Perú

    Yadhira Pérez-Quiñones

Authors
  1. Liseth Salazar-Quiñones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José Ignacio Fernández-Vigo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yadhira Pérez-Quiñones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elena Montolío-Marzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Javier García-Bella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Laura Morales-Fernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rafael Sánchez-del-Hoyo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Julián García-Feijóo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. José María Martínez-de-la-Casa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JMM-de-la-C contributed to the conception and design of the study. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by LS, JIF-V, YP, and EM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by LS-Q, LM-F, RS-del-H, JIF-V, JG-B, and JG-F. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liseth Salazar-Quiñones.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salazar-Quiñones, L., Fernández-Vigo, J.I., Pérez-Quiñones, Y. et al. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements between Easyton transpalpebral tonometry and Perkins, iCare iC100 and Corvis ST, and the influence of corneal and anterior scleral thickness. Int Ophthalmol 43, 4121–4129 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-023-02814-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-023-02814-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation