Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements with the Tono-pen, Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, and Noncontact Tonometer in Nonglaucomatous Pseudophakic Children

Overview

Journal Int Ophthalmol

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2024 Jun 27

PMID 38935310

Authors

Sibel Oskan Yalcin

Aysin Tuba Kaplan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the agreement between the Goldman applanation tonometer (GAT), Tono-Pen, and noncontact tonometer (NCT) in the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) in pseudophakic children.

Methods: The medical records of nonglaucomatous pseudophakic children between 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 46 eyes of 23 patients operated for bilateral pediatric cataract were included in the study. The patients' mean age was 13.4 ± 4.1 years. Central corneal thickness (CCT) and IOP values measured with the GAT, Tono-Pen, and NCT were recorded. Agreement between the tonometers was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and the Bland-Altman method.

Results: The mean IOP of the 46 eyes included in the study was measured as 13.7 ± 2.3 mm Hg with the GAT, 16.0 ± 2.3 mm Hg with NCT, and 16.5 ± 2.3 mm Hg with the Tono-Pen (p < 0.001). There is no statistical difference between NCT and Tono-Pen measurements, while GAT measurements were significantly lower than those of the NCT and Tono-pen. ICC values showed fair agreement between NCT and Tono-Pen (ICC = 0.720), whereas there was poor agreement between GAT and NCT (ICC = 0.501) and Tono-pen (ICC = 0.314).

Conclusions: With all devices included in the study, thicker corneas were associated with higher IOP measurements. Although there was moderate agreement between the NCT and Tono-Pen, there was a statistically significant difference in the IOP values provided by the three devices. Our results suggest these devices should not be used interchangeably.

References

Wu X, Long E, Lin H, Liu Y . Prevalence and epidemiological characteristics of congenital cataract: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2016; 6:28564. PMC: 4917826. DOI: 10.1038/srep28564. View

Sorsby A, Sheridan M . The eye at birth: measurement of the principal diameters in forty-eight cadavers. J Anat. 1960; 94:192-7. PMC: 1244392. View

Sheeladevi S, Lawrenson J, Fielder A, Suttle C . Global prevalence of childhood cataract: a systematic review. Eye (Lond). 2016; 30(9):1160-9. PMC: 5023808. DOI: 10.1038/eye.2016.156. View

Crockett C, Camero K, Kong L, Yen K . Visual outcomes of patients presenting with bilateral infantile cataracts and nystagmus. Can J Ophthalmol. 2017; 52(2):203-206. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2016.08.021. View

Brandt J . Corneal thickness in glaucoma screening, diagnosis, and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004; 15(2):85-9. DOI: 10.1097/00055735-200404000-00004. View

Bordon A, KATSUMI O, Hirose T . Tonometry in pediatric patients: a comparative study among Tono-pen, Perkins, and Schiötz tonometers. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1995; 32(6):373-7. DOI: 10.3928/0191-3913-19951101-10. View

Moreno-Montanes J, Gomez-Demmel E, Lajara-Blesa J . Comparative study of three non-contact tonometers and the Goldmann tonometer. Ophthalmologica. 1994; 208(3):115-8. DOI: 10.1159/000310466. View

Mansoori T, Balakrishna N . Effect of central corneal thickness on intraocular pressure and comparison of Topcon CT-80 non-contact tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Clin Exp Optom. 2017; 101(2):206-212. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12620. 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.

Panek W, Boothe W, Lee D, Zemplenyi E, Pettit T . Intraocular pressure measurement with the Tono-Pen through soft contact lenses. Am J Ophthalmol. 1990; 109(1):62-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)75580-1. View

11.

Iester M, Mermoud A, Achache F, Roy S . New Tonopen XL: comparison with the Goldmann tonometer. Eye (Lond). 2001; 15(Pt 1):52-8. DOI: 10.1038/eye.2001.13. View

12.

Bandyopadhyay M, Raychaudhuri A, Lahiri S, Schwartz E, Myatt M, Johnson G . Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometry with the Tonopen for measuring intraocular pressure in a population-based glaucoma survey in rural West Bengal. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2002; 9(3):215-24. DOI: 10.1076/opep.9.3.215.1518. View

13.

Kao S, Lichter P, Bergstrom T, Rowe S, Musch D . Clinical comparison of the Oculab Tono-Pen to the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Ophthalmology. 1987; 94(12):1541-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(87)33249-x. View

14.

Shields M . The non-contact tonometer. Its value and limitations. Surv Ophthalmol. 1980; 24(4):211-9. DOI: 10.1016/0039-6257(80)90042-9. View

15.

Moseley M, Evans N, Fielder A . Comparison of a new non-contact tonometer with Goldmann applanation. Eye (Lond). 1989; 3 ( Pt 3):332-7. DOI: 10.1038/eye.1989.48. View

16.

Forbes M, Pico Jr G, GROLMAN B . A noncontact applanation tonometer. Description and clinical evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1974; 91(2):134-40. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1974.03900060140012. View

17.

Gupta S, Sinha G, Sharma R, Nayak B, Patil B, Kashyap B . Agreement between diurnal variations of intraocular pressure by Tono-Pen and Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients on topical anti-glaucoma medication. Int Ophthalmol. 2015; 36(1):9-15. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-015-0067-5. View

18.

Shousha S, Abo Steit M, Hosny M, Ewais W, Shalaby A . Comparison of different intraocular pressure measurement techniques in normal eyes, post surface and post lamellar refractive surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013; 7:71-9. PMC: 3544333. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S37978. View

19.

Kageyama M, Hirooka K, Baba T, Shiraga F . Comparison of ICare rebound tonometer with noncontact tonometer in healthy children. J Glaucoma. 2010; 20(1):63-6. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181d12dc4. View

20.

Feng C, Jin K, Yi K, Choi D . Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Rebound, Noncontact, and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry in Children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015; 160(5):937-943.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.07.029. View