[Measuring Intraocular Pressure by Different Methods]

Overview

Journal Ophthalmologe

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2009 Aug 5

PMID 19652979

Citations 6

Authors

J Lamparter

E M Hoffmann

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Tonometry is the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP). Normal IOP values range from 10 to 21 mmHg (15.5 mmHg+/-2 SD). They are influenced by various factors, including the patient's position during measurement, central corneal thickness, corneal diameter and curvature, rigidity of the cornea, and the cornea's state of hydration. Until now, Goldmann applanation tonometry has been seen as the gold standard for intraocular pressure measurement. But many new techniques and devices for determining IOP have been developed, such as noncontact tonometry, the Tono-Pen, the ICare tonometer, dynamic contour tonometry, TGDc-01 tonometry, and the ocular response analyzer. The aim of these techniques is to minimize distorting influences to obtain the "true IOP." Several of these methods show advantages in specific situations; however, limitations exist that should be considered when interpreting the obtained IOP results. This article describes the individual methods of measurement and discusses their advantages and disadvantages.

Citing Articles

Influence of Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology Tonometry on Intraocular Pressure.

Borroni D, Gadhvi K, Hristova R, McLean K, Rocha de Lossada C, Romano V Ophthalmol Sci. 2022; 1(1):100003.

PMID: 36246003 PMC: 9562332. DOI: 10.1016/j.xops.2021.100003.

Distribution of central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure in emmetropic eyes of healthy children of Palestine: a representative cross-sectional study.

Alkhodari H Int J Ophthalmol. 2019; 12(3):496-503.

PMID: 30918821 PMC: 6423400. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2019.03.22.

Genetic correlations between intraocular pressure, blood pressure and primary open-angle glaucoma: a multi-cohort analysis.

Aschard H, Kang J, Iglesias A, Hysi P, Cooke Bailey J, Khawaja A Eur J Hum Genet. 2017; 25(11):1261-1267.

PMID: 28853718 PMC: 5643970. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2017.136.

Reliability of Tonolab measurements in rats.

Liu L, Huang C, Zhang M Int J Ophthalmol. 2014; 7(6):930-4.

PMID: 25540741 PMC: 4270983. DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2014.06.03.

[Differences in the measurement results of Goldmann applanation tonometry with and without fluorescein].

Arend N, Hirneiss C, Kernt M Ophthalmologe. 2013; 111(3):241-6.

PMID: 23604252 DOI: 10.1007/s00347-013-2843-9.

References

Miglior S, Zeyen T, Pfeiffer N, Cunha-Vaz J, Torri V, Adamsons I . Results of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology. 2005; 112(3):366-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.11.030. View

van der Jagt L, Jansonius N . Three portable tonometers, the TGDc-01, the ICARE and the Tonopen XL, compared with each other and with Goldmann applanation tonometry*. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005; 25(5):429-35. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2005.00318.x. View

Munkwitz S, Elkarmouty A, Hoffmann E, Pfeiffer N, Thieme H . Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer over a wide IOP range. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008; 246(6):875-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-007-0758-3. View

Barleon L, Hoffmann E, Berres M, Pfeiffer N, Grus F . Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients and healthy subjects. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142(4):583-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.05.030. View

Hager A, Annette H, Loge K, Kristina L, Schroeder B, Bernd S . Effect of central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis on tonometry as measured by dynamic contour tonometry, ocular response analyzer, and Goldmann tonometry in glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma. 2008; 17(5):361-5. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31815c3ad3. View

Schlote T, Landenberger H . [Intraocular pressure difference in Goldmann applanation tonometry versus a transpalpebral tonometer TGDc-01"PRA" in glaucoma patients]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2005; 222(2):123-31. DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-857881. View

Hoffmann E, Pfeiffer N, Barleon L, Grus F . [Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements in the course of product certification according to EN ISO 8612:2001]. Ophthalmologe. 2006; 103(4):317-20. DOI: 10.1007/s00347-006-1318-7. View

Schreiber W, Vorwerk C, Langenbucher A, Behrens-Baumann W, Viestenz A . [A comparison of rebound tonometry (ICare) with TonoPenXL and Goldmann applanation tonometry]. Ophthalmologe. 2007; 104(4):299-304. DOI: 10.1007/s00347-007-1487-z. View

Amm M, Hedderich J . [Transpalpebral tonometry with a digital tonometer in healthy eyes and after penetrating keratoplasty]. Ophthalmologe. 2004; 102(1):70-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00347-004-1082-5. View

10.

Troost A, Specht K, Krummenauer F, Yun S, Schwenn O . Deviations between transpalpebral tonometry using TGDc-01 and Goldmann applanation tonometry depending on the IOP level. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005; 243(9):853-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-005-1142-9. View

11.

Rombold F, Thiel M, Neubauer A, Hirneiss C, Kampik A . [Evaluation of portable TGDc-01 tonometers and comparison with the Goldmann applanation tonometer]. Ophthalmologe. 2004; 102(2):158-62. DOI: 10.1007/s00347-004-1078-1. View

12.

Hager A, Wiegand W . [Methods of measuring intraocular pressure independently of central corneal thickness]. Ophthalmologe. 2008; 105(9):840-4. DOI: 10.1007/s00347-008-1729-8. View

13.

Krieglstein G, Langham M . Influence of body position on the intraocular pressure of normal and glaucomatous eyes. Ophthalmologica. 1975; 171(2):132-45. DOI: 10.1159/000307479. View

14.

Boehm A, Weber A, Pillunat L, Koch R, Spoerl E . Dynamic contour tonometry in comparison to intracameral IOP measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 49(6):2472-7. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.07-1366. View