» Articles » PMID: 24073330

Does Rebound Tonometry Probe Misalignment Modify Intraocular Pressure Measurements in Human Eyes?

Overview
Journal J Ophthalmol
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2013 Sep 28
PMID 24073330
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose. To examine the influence of positional misalignments on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement with a rebound tonometer. Methods. Using the iCare rebound tonometer, IOP readings were taken from the right eye of 36 healthy subjects at the central corneal apex (CC) and compared to IOP measures using the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Using a bespoke rig, iCare IOP readings were also taken 2 mm laterally from CC, both nasally and temporally, along with angular deviations of 5 and 10 degrees, both nasally and temporally to the visual axis. Results. Mean IOP ± SD, as measured by GAT, was 14.7 ± 2.5 mmHg versus iCare tonometer readings of 17.4 ± 3.6 mmHg at CC, representing an iCare IOP overestimation of 2.7 ± 2.8 mmHg (P < 0.001), which increased at higher average IOPs. IOP at CC using the iCare tonometer was not significantly different to values at lateral displacements. IOP was marginally underestimated with angular deviation of the probe but only reaching significance at 10 degrees nasally. Conclusions. As shown previously, the iCare tonometer overestimates IOP compared to GAT. However, IOP measurement in normal, healthy subjects using the iCare rebound tonometer appears insensitive to misalignments. An IOP underestimation of <1 mmHg with the probe deviated 10 degrees nasally reached statistical but not clinical significance levels.

Citing Articles

Finite element method for estimation of applanation force and to study the influence of intraocular pressure of eye on tonometry.

Bharathi R, Poojary R, Prabhu G, S Ve R Int Ophthalmol. 2022; 42(7):1997-2005.

PMID: 35665874 PMC: 9287227. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-021-02157-6.


Intraocular pressure measurements using the TONOVET rebound tonometer: Influence of the probe-cornea distance.

Rodrigues B, Montiani-Ferreira F, Bortolini M, Somma A, Komaromy A, Dornbusch P Vet Ophthalmol. 2020; 24 Suppl 1:175-185.

PMID: 33070466 PMC: 8221414. DOI: 10.1111/vop.12832.


Icare rebound tonometers: review of their characteristics and ease of use.

Nakakura S Clin Ophthalmol. 2018; 12:1245-1253.

PMID: 30034218 PMC: 6047858. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S163092.


The influence of the tonometer position on canine intraocular pressure measurements using the Tonovet rebound tonometer.

de Oliveira J, Montiani-Ferreira F, Williams D Open Vet J. 2018; 8(1):68-76.

PMID: 29721435 PMC: 5918127. DOI: 10.4314/ovj.v8i1.12.


Tonometers-which one should I use?.

Aziz K, Friedman D Eye (Lond). 2018; 32(5):931-937.

PMID: 29456251 PMC: 5944656. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-018-0040-4.


References
1.
Bland J, Altman D . Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet. 1995; 346(8982):1085-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)91748-9. View

2.
Martinez-de-la-Casa J, Jimenez-Santos M, Saenz-Frances F, Matilla-Rodero M, Mendez-Hernandez C, Herrero-Vanrell R . Performance of the rebound, noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers in routine clinical practice. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009; 89(7):676-80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2009.01774.x. View

3.
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

4.
Gilchrist J . On the precision and reliability of IOP measurements. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996; 80(7):586-7. PMC: 505549. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.80.7.586. View

5.
Fernandes P, Diaz-Rey J, Queiros A, Gonzalez-Meijome J, Jorge J . Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005; 25(5):436-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2005.00327.x. View