Comparison of Ocular Response Analyzer, Dynamic Contour Tonometer and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer

Overview

Journal Int Ophthalmol

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2010 May 26

PMID 20499265

Citations 5

Authors

Charlotte Renier

Thierry Zeyen

Steffen Fieuws

Sofie Vandenbroeck

Ingeborg Stalmans

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the intra-ocular pressure (IOP) obtained by ocular response analyzer (ORA), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). In 102 patients (47 with primary open-angle glaucoma and 55 healthy controls) IOP was measured with GAT, ORA and DCT in one eye. The agreement between GAT, DCT and ORA values was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. The discrepancy between the methods was related to central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) using linear regression models. Significant differences were observed amongst DCT, corneal compensated ORA (ORAcc) and GAT (P < 0.01). Only the ORAcc and DCT were comparable. ORAcc and DCT significantly over-estimated IOP compared to GAT and for ORAcc this difference depended on the height of IOP. A significant correlation was found between CCT and the deviation of DCT and ORAcc from corrected GAT (both P < 0.0001). Our study showed a low degree of agreement between IOP measured by ORA, DCT and GAT. DCT and ORAcc over-estimated the IOP compared to GAT.

Citing Articles

Telehealth and Screening Strategies in the Diagnosis and Management of Glaucoma.

Wong S, Tsai J J Clin Med. 2021; 10(16).

PMID: 34441748 PMC: 8396962. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10163452.

Intraocular Pressure Based on Dynamic Bidirectional Applanation and Air-puff Tonometry: A Comparative Study.

Kilavuzoglu A, Cosar C, Celebi A, Al Parmak U J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2019; 13(2):68-73.

PMID: 31564796 PMC: 6743309. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1251.

Tonographic Effect of Ocular Response Analyzer in Comparison to Goldmann Applanation Tonometry.

Zimmermann M, Pitz S, Schmidtmann I, Pfeiffer N, Wasielica-Poslednik J PLoS One. 2017; 12(1):e0169438.

PMID: 28068365 PMC: 5221819. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169438.

Intraocular pressure measurement by three different tonometers in primary congenital glaucoma.

Zareei A, Razeghinejad M, Nowroozzadeh M, Mehrabi Y, Aghazadeh-Amiri M J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2015; 10(1):43-8.

PMID: 26005552 PMC: 4424718. DOI: 10.4103/2008-322X.156105.

Distribution of central corneal thickness and its association with ocular parameters in a large central European cohort: the Gutenberg health study.

Hoffmann E, Lamparter J, Mirshahi A, Elflein H, Hoehn R, Wolfram C PLoS One. 2013; 8(8):e66158.

PMID: 23936291 PMC: 3731336. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066158.

References

Kaufmann C, Bachmann L, Thiel M . Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44(9):3790-4. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.02-0946. View

Kanngiesser H, Kniestedt C, Robert Y . Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2005; 14(5):344-50. DOI: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000176936.16015.4e. View

Noecker R, Dirks M, Choplin N, Bernstein P, Batoosingh A, Whitcup S . A six-month randomized clinical trial comparing the intraocular pressure-lowering efficacy of bimatoprost and latanoprost in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002; 135(1):55-63. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(02)01827-5. View

Bland J, Altman D . Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999; 8(2):135-60. DOI: 10.1177/096228029900800204. View

Martinez-de-la-Casa J, Garcia-Feijoo J, Fernandez-Vidal A, Mendez-Hernandez C, Garcia-Sanchez J . Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47(10):4410-4. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0158. View

Doughty M, Zaman M . Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000; 44(5):367-408. DOI: 10.1016/s0039-6257(00)00110-7. View

Quan H, Shih W . Assessing reproducibility by the within-subject coefficient of variation with random effects models. Biometrics. 1996; 52(4):1195-203. View

Siganos D, Papastergiou G, Moedas C . Assessment of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer in monitoring intraocular pressure in unoperated eyes and eyes after LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30(4):746-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2003.12.033. View

Whitacre M, Stein R . Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol. 1993; 38(1):1-30. DOI: 10.1016/0039-6257(93)90053-a. View

10.

Hager A, Schroeder B, Sadeghi M, Grossherr M, Wiegand W . [The influence of corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor on the measurement of intraocular pressure]. Ophthalmologe. 2007; 104(6):484-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00347-007-1532-y. View

11.

Salvetat M, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Brusini P . Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the TonoPen, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007; 85(3):272-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2006.00834.x. View

12.

Johannesson G, Hallberg P, Eklund A, Linden C . Pascal, ICare and Goldmann applanation tonometry--a comparative study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2007; 86(6):614-21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2007.01112.x. View

13.

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

14.

Pache M, Wilmsmeyer S, Lautebach S, Funk J . Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005; 243(8):763-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-005-1124-y. View

15.

Doyle A, Lachkar Y . Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldman applanation tonometry over a wide range of central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma. 2005; 14(4):288-92. DOI: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000169393.40298.05. View

16.

Schneider E, Grehn F . Intraocular pressure measurement-comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2005; 15(1):2-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000196655.85460.d6. View

17.

Ku J, Danesh-Meyer H, Craig J, Gamble G, McGhee C . Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Eye (Lond). 2005; 20(2):191-8. DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6701849. View