Journals / Glokom Katarakt / 2013 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of rebound tonometer, dynamic contour tonometer, tonopen XL with goldmann applanation tonometer in normal eyes

Normal gözlerde goldmann applanasyon tonometre ile rebound tonometri, dinamik kontur tonometre, tonopen XL'ın karşılaştırılması

Pages
225–230
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

So, it can be used as a relevant tonometry in clinical setting.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: This clinical study was conducted to compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), Rebound tonometry (Icare), Dynamic Contour tonometer (Pascal) and TonoPen XL (TP), to evaluate the effect of central corneal thickness (CCK) on IOP measurements.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: The study included 39 healthy subjects.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:So, it can be used as a relevant tonometry in clinical setting.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: This clinical study was conducted to compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), Rebound tonometry (Icare), Dynamic Contour tonometer (Pascal) and TonoPen XL (TP), to evaluate the effect of central corneal thickness (CCK) on IOP measurements. Materials and Methods: The study included 39 healthy subjects. IOP measurements were taken using Icare, Pascal, TP and GAT, respec- tively. CCK was measured with ultrasound pachymetry. To compare the measurements; the analysis of percentage change and Pearson correlation, the average, median, standart deviation and minimum-maximum values were calculated. The agreement between 2 different devices was assessed by use of the Bland-Altman method. Results: The average CCK was 528±16 μm (483-555 μm). The mean IOP, with Icare was 13.8±2.1 mmHg, with Pascal DCT was 14.0±2.2 mmHg, with TP was 14.0±3.4 mmHg, with GAT was 13.8±2.4 mmHg. There was no significant difference statistically between the IOP measurements of all methods (p>0.05). The percentage of the Icare, Pascal DCT and TP readings, which were all within ±3 mmHg of the GAT readings were respectively 66.6%, 61.5%, 56.4%. There was an agreement between corrected GAT values and the other tonometry values on the Bland-Altman graphs. There was no correlation between IOP measurements and CCT. Conclusion: In our study, there was no significant difference between the four methods of IOP measurements. Icare tonometry does not require topical anesthesia, is easy to use, the measurement is fast. So, it can be used as a relevant tonometry in clinical setting.

Özet

Amaç: Bu klinik çalışmada Goldmann applanasyon tonometresi (GAT), Rebound tonometre (İcare), Dinamik kontur tonometre (Pascal DKT) ve TonoPen XL (TP) ile yapılan göz içi basınç ölçümlerinin (GİB) karşılaştırılması ve İcare, Pascal DKT, TP ile yapılan göz içi basınç ölçümleri üzerine santral kornea kalınlığının etkisini değerlendirmek amacıyla planlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Otuz dokuz sağlıklı birey çalışmaya dahil edildi. Olguların sırasıyla İcare, Pascal DKT, TP ve GAT ile GİB ölçümleri ya- pıldı. Ultrasonik pakimetri kullanılarak santral kornea kalınlığı (SKK) değerleri elde edildi. Ölçümlerin karşılaştırılması için yüzde değişim analizi, Pearson korelasyon analizi ile ortalama, standart sapma değerleri ve minimum-maksimum değerleri hesaplandı. İki farklı metod arasındaki uyumluluk Bland-Altman metodu kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Çalışmaya dahil edilen olguların ortalama yaşı 38±4 (30-45) idi. Ortalama SKK 528±16 μm (483-555 μm). Ortalama GİB; İcare ile ortalama 13.8±2.1 mmHg, Pascal DKT ile ortalama 14.0±2.2 mmHg,TP ile 14.0±3.4 mmHg, GAT ile ortalama 13.8±2.4 mmHg, olarak ölçüldü. Ölçümler arasında anlamlı farklılık görülmedi. İcare, Pascal DKT, TP ile yapılan ölçümlerin yüzde kaçının GAT ile elde edilen değerlerin ±3 mmHg aralığında olduğu araştırıldığında sırasıyla %66.6, %61.5, %56.4 değerler elde edildi. Bland-Altman analizinde düzeltilmiş GAT değerleri ile diğer tonometreler arasında uyum mevcuttu. SKK ile GİB değerleri arasında korelasyon saptanmadı. Sonuç: Çalışmamızda tüm tonometrelerle elde edilen GİB değerleri arasında anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı. İcare topikal anestezi gerektirmemesi, kullanımının kolay olması, ölçümün hızlı olması nedeniyle klinikte uygun bir tonometre yöntemi olarak kullanılabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZCAN, A. A., ÇİLOĞLU, E., ESEN, E., ÜNDAR, İ. H., HARBİYELİ, İ., ŞİMŞEK, F. (2013). Comparison of rebound tonometer, dynamic contour tonometer, tonopen XL with goldmann applanation tonometer in normal eyes. Glokom Katarakt, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4, 225–230. https://ajindex.com/articles/210887

References (1)

  1. European Glaucoma Society. Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 3rd ed. 2008;61-6. 2.Ruokonen PC, Schwenteck T, Draeger J. Evaluation of the impedance tonometers TGDC-01 and İcare according to the international ocular tonometer standards ISO 8612. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2007;245:1259-65. 3.Mark HH, Mark TL. Corneal astigmatism in applanation to- nometry. Eye 2003;17:618-18. 4.Walton DS. Primary congenital open angle glaucoma: a study of the anterior segment abnormalities. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1979;77:746-68. 5.Leon WH. Measuring intraocular pressure-adjustments for corneal thickness and new technologies. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2006; 17:115-9. 6.Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta- analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol 2000;44:367-408. 7.Kaufmann C, Bachmann L, Thiel MA. Intraocular pres- sure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry af- ter laser in situ keratomileus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:3790-4. 8.Siganos DS, Papastergiou GI, Moedas M. Assessment of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer in monitoring intraocular pressure in unoperated eyes and eyes after LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004; 30:746-51. 9.Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, et al. Comparisions be- tween Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the Tono-Pen, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2007;85:272-9. 10.Beaumont P, Kang K. Tono-Pen tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol 1993;77:754-70. 11.Midelfart A, Wigers A. Clinical comparison of the ProTon and Tono-Pen tonometers with the Goldmann applanation tonom- eter. Br J Ophthalmol 1994;78:895-8. 12.Hitchings R. Normal-tension glaucoma. In: Janoff M, Duk- er JS. (Eds.). Ophthalmology. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby Co; 2004:1488-90. 13.Kotecha A. What biomechanical properties of the cornea are relevant for the clinician? Surv Ophthalmol 2007;52:109-14. 14.Erdurmuş M, Hepşen İF. Paskal dinamik kontur tonometre. Glo-Kat 2007;2:143-8. 15.Kamppeter BA, Jonas JB. Dynamic contour tonometry for intraocular pressure management. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;140:318-20. 16.Ku JF, Danesh-Meyer HV, Craig JP, et al. Comparison of in- traocular pressure by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Eye 2006;20:191-8. 17.Pache M, Wilmmeyer S, Lautebach S, et al. Dynamic con- tour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005;243:763-7. 1