Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of refractive errors on IOP measurement by rebound tonometry (ICare) and Goldmann applanation tonometry

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

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the effect of refractive errors and central corneal thickness (CCT) on the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) by ICare rebound tonometer (RT), and its agreement with measurements by Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT).

Patients and methods

Two observers measured the IOP by using RT and GAT in four groups of healthy volunteers with emmetropic (n = 78), hyperopic (n = 83), myopic (n = 87) and astigmatic (n = 79) eyes. Refraction was assessed by an autorefractometer. CCT was assessed by ultrasound pachymetry.

Results

In all groups, no significant interobserver difference was seen in IOP values detected by both tonometers (Wilcoxon signed-rank test not significant). In all groups, IOP values were higher as measured by RT than by GAT (paired t-test p = 0.000): mean RT–GAT difference was higher in myopic eyes (+1.6 ± 1.8 mmHg), and it was less than 1 mmHg in the other groups. RT–GAT difference was correlated to the refraction (p < 0.001), and it was greater when an higher IOP was detected by RT (significant correlation between RT–GAT difference and IOP by RT, p < 0.001). Compared with GAT values, the IOP readings by RT were greater than 2 mmHg in respectively 17.9% (emmetropic), 13.3% (hyperopic), 34.5% (myopic) and 7.6% (astigmatic) of the eyes. With both tonometers, in all groups the IOP values were correlated with CCT (p < 0.05), but the discrepancy between RT and GAT values was not related to CCT.

Conclusions

In all groups of subjects, higher IOP values were detected by RT; the IOP readings exceed the GAT values usually in a range of less than 1 mmHg, except when RT detects IOP >18 mmHg and generally in myopic eyes; RT–GAT discrepancy is related to the refractive error, but not to CCT.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dielemans I, Vingerling JR, Hofman A, Grobbee DE, de Jong PT (1994) Reliability of intraocular pressure measurement with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in epidemiological studies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 232:141–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA (2004) Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:3118–3121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Herndon LW (2006) Measuring intraocular pressure-adjustments for corneal thickness and new technologies. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 17:115–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. ElMallah MK, Asrani SG (2008) New ways to measure intraocular pressure. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 19:122–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kontiola AI (2000) A new induction-based impact method for measuring intraocular pressure. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 78:142–145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kontiola AI, Goldblum D, Mittag T, Danias J (2001) The induction/impact tonometer: a new instrument to measure intraocular pressure in rat. Exp Eye Res 73:781–785

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fernandes P, Diaz-Rey JA, Queiros A, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Jorge J (2005) Comparison of the ICare(R) rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 25:436–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. van der Jagt LH, Jansonius NM (2005) Three portable tonometers, the TGDc-01, the ICARE and the Tonopen XL, compared with each other and with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 25:429–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Castillo A, Garcia-Sanchez J (2005) Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:4578–4580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Iliev ME, Goldblum D, Katsoulis K, Amstutz C, Frueh B (2006) Comparison of rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry and correlation with central corneal thickness. Br J Ophthalmol 90:833–835

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Detry-Morel M, Jamart J, Detry MB, Pourjavan S, Charlier L, Dethinne B, Huge L, Ledoux A (2006) Clinical evaluation of the dynamic rebound tonometer Icare. J Fr Ophtalmol 29:1119–1127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Davies LN, Bartlett H, Mallen EA, Wolffsohn JS (2006) Clinical evaluation of rebound tonometer. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 84:206–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Parisi L (2006) Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 15:213–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Vico E, Fernandez-Vidal A, JM Benitez del Castillo, Wasfi M, Garcia-Sanchez J (2006) Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and Goldmann tonometry. Ophthalmology 113:2156–2162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nakamura M, Darhad U, Tatsumi Y, Fujioka M, Kusuhara A, Maeda H, Negi A (2006) Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of applanation tonometers. Am J Ophthalmol 142:332–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. López-Caballero C, Contreras I, Muñoz-Negrete FJ (2007) Rebound tonometry in a clinical setting. Comparison with applanation tonometry. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 82:273–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ruokonen PC, Schwenteck T, Draeger J (2007) Evaluation of the impedance tonometers TGDc-01 and iCare according to the international ocular tonometer standards ISO 8612. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245:1259–1265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Munkwitz S, Elkarmouty A, Hoffmann EM, Pfeiffer N, Thieme H (2008) Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer over a wide IOP range. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 246:875–879

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kontiola A, Puska P (2004) Measuring intraocular pressure with the Pulsair 3000 and rebound tonometers in elderly patients without an anesthetic. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 242:3–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. British Standards Institution (1979) Precision of test methods I: Guide for the determination and reproducibility for a standard test method. BSI, London

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chui WS, Lam A, Chen D, Chiu R (2008) The Influence of corneal croperties on rebound tonometry. Ophthalmology 115:80–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pakrou N, Gray T, Mills R, Landers J, Craig J (2008) Clinical comparison of the Icare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma 17:43–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kotecha A, Elsheikh A, Roberts CR, Zhu H, Garway-Heath DF (2006) Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:5337–5347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Song Y, Congdon N, Li L, Zhou Z, Choi K, Lam DS, Pang CP, Xie Z, Liu X, Sharma A, Chen W, Zhang M (2008) Corneal hysteresis and axial length among Chinese secondary school children: the Xichang Pediatric Refractive Error Study (X-PRES) Report No. 4. Am J Ophthalmol 145:819–826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jorge JM, González-Méijome JM, Queirós A, Fernandes P, Parafita MA (2008) Correlations between corneal biomechanical properties measured with the ocular response analyzer and ICare rebound tonometry. J Glaucoma 17:442–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eye Clinic, University of Catania, via Clementi 36, Catania, 95154, Italy

    Teresio Avitabile, Antonio Longo & Daniela Rocca

  2. Neurovisual Science Technology, SRL, Catania, Italy

    Roberta Amato & Caterina Gagliano

  3. Department G.F Ingrassia, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

    Marine Castaing

Authors
  1. Teresio Avitabile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio Longo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniela Rocca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roberta Amato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caterina Gagliano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marine Castaing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teresio Avitabile.

Additional information

No financial relationship

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Avitabile, T., Longo, A., Rocca, D. et al. The influence of refractive errors on IOP measurement by rebound tonometry (ICare) and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248, 585–591 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-009-1176-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-009-1176-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation