Evaluation of Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in keratoconus

Agreement among Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, Easyton Transpalpebral Tonometer, Tonopen, and Icare in Patients with Keratoconus

Objectives

The objective of the study is to evaluate the agreement between Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and Easyton transpalpebral tonometer, Tonopen, and Icare in patients with Keratoconus.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included 46 eyes of 26 patients with keratoconus. Intraocular pressure (IOP) is measured using easyton, icare, tonopen, and GAT. Measurements were compared and the influences of corneal topographic variables on IOP measurement were evaluated. Bland-Altman plots were used for assessing agreement between different tonometers.

Results

The mean age of the participants was 24.08±6.76 (range, 18-47) years (15 males and 11 females). The highest of the mean IOP values measured with different tonometers was obtained with Easyton (12.33±1.65), followed by Tonopen (11.59±2.17), GAT (10.67±1.52), and Icare (10.04±2.33). The mean IOP value measured with Easyton was significantly higher than that measured with GAT (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between GAT and either Tonopen (p=0.154) or Icare measurements (p=0.732). There was no significant difference between Tonopen and Easyton measurements (p=0.421). Icare measurements were correlated with central corneal thickness and keratometric values. GAT measurements were correlated with only Kmax. Thirty-eight (82.6%) of the differences were within the agreement limits (assumed clinically important deviation of up to ±2 mmHg) of GAT and Tonopen, 73.9% (n=34) were within the agreement limits of GAT and Icare, and 78.3% (n=36) were within the agreement limits of GAT and Easyton.

Conclusion

Compared with GAT, the gold standard method, Easyton IOP readings were higher, while both Tonopen and Icare readings were similar to GAT. All three tonometers showed acceptable agreement with the GAT, however, Tonopen showed the greatest agreement.

Twenty-four hours intraocular pressure in keratoconic eyes assessed by applanation tonometry and Tono-Pen AVIA

AIM

To assess intraocular pressure (IOP) during the daily curve of intraocular pressure (DCPo) in keratoconic eyes and compare Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), without and with astigmatism correction (nGAT and cGAT) and Tono-Pen AVIA (TPA) assessment methods.

METHODS

Thirty-nine keratoconic eyes of 24 patients were assessed. DCPo was evaluated with five IOP measurements; four were performed with a GAT (nGAT and cGAT), and a Tono-Pen AVIA (TPA) at various times throughout the day.

RESULTS

Mean IOP DCPo values (mm Hg) were: nGAT, 9.9±2.6; cGAT, 11.3±2.6; TPA 12.3±3.1. Mean IOP DCPo differences (mm Hg) and Spearman's correlation coefficients were as follows: cGATc-nGAT, 1.32±1.31, r _s=0.879 (P<0.01); cGAT-TPA, -1.02±2.08, r _s=0.723 (P<0.01); and nGAT-TPA, -2.35±2.23, r _s=0.730 (P<0.01). Bland-Altman analysis for agreement between cGAT-TPA and nGAT-TPA mean IOP DCPo measurements revealed a mean difference of 1.02 (95%CI, 0.35-1.70) and 2.35 (95%CI, 1.62-3.07) mm Hg, respectively. Regression analysis yielded the following equation: TPA IOP=5.49+0.775×cGAT-0.015×ACD-0.299×corneal astig matism, which allowed us to infer TPA IOP values from other parameters.

CONCLUSION

In keratoconic eyes, IOP peaks of DCPo measurements are identified at 6 a.m., independent of the tonometer. The mean DCPo values are: TPA>cGAT>nGAT. IOP TPA measures are predictive of cGAT values, adjusted according to anterior chamber depth and corneal astigmatism.

Tonometry by Ocular Response Analyzer in Keratoconic and Warpage Eyes in Comparison with Normal Eyes

Purpose

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured by ocular response analyzer (ORA) in contact lens-induced corneal warpage, normal, and keratoconic eyes.

Methods

In a prospective, observational case-control study, 94 eyes of 47 warpage-suspected cases and 46 eyes of 23 keratoconic patients were enrolled. Warpage-suspected cases were followed until a definite diagnosis was made (warpage, nonwarpage normal, or keratoconus). ORA tonometry and corneal biomechanics testing were performed for all cases in each visit. We had 2-3 measured corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc) and Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg) for each patient (based on group) with at least 2-week interval.

Results

After following up of warpage-suspected patients, finally 44 eyes of 22 patients had confirmed soft contact lens-related corneal warpage. Forty-six eyes of 23 people were finally diagnosed as nonwarpage normal eyes. Forty-six eyes of 23 known keratoconus patients were also included for comparison. The demographic and refractive data were not different between the warpage and nonwarpage normal groups but were different in the keratoconus group. Both IOPcc and IOPg were statistically different with the highest value in the warpage group followed by normal and keratoconus groups; the same trend was observed in central corneal thickness (CCT). The mean of IOPg was 14.94 ± 2.65, 13.7 ± 2.33, and 10.86 ± 3 and IOPcc was 15.73 ± 2.4, 15.28 ± 2.43, and 14.08 ± 2.55 in the warpage, normal, and keratoconus groups, respectively. IOPg and IOPcc in the warpage group (based on baseline diagnosis) did not regress to become closer to IOP of normal eyes after discontinuation of contact lens in their follow-up visits (P value for IOPg and IOPcc trends in the warpage group was 0.07 and 0.09 controlling for CCT, respectively). Both IOPcc and IOPg were significantly lower in keratoconic eyes in comparison with normal eyes. After correction for the confounding effect of CCT, a lower IOPcc in keratoconus versus warpage remained significant (P = 0.02).

Conclusion

Both IOPcc and IOPg were statistically different with the highest value in the warpage group followed by normal and keratoconus groups, just like their CCT. After correction for the confounding effect of CCT, there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups in their measured IOPcc and IOPg except for IOPcc in keratoconus versus warpage (P = 0.02).

Quantitative High-speed Assessment of Droplet and Aerosol From an Eye After Impact With an Air-puff Amid COVID-19 Scenario

PURPOSE

To quantify aerosol and droplets generated during noncontact tonometry (NCT) and assess the spread distance of the same.

METHODOLOGY

This was an experimental study on healthy human volunteers (n=8 eyes). In an experimental setup, NCT was performed on eyes (n=8) of human volunteers under normal settings, with a single and 2 drops of lubricant. High-speed shadowgraphy, frontal lighting technique, and fluorescein analysis were used to detect the possible generation of any droplets and aerosols. Mathematical computation of the spread of the droplets was then performed.

RESULTS

In a natural setting, there was no droplet or aerosol production. Minimal splatter along with droplet ejection was observed when 1 drop of lubricant was used before NCT. When 2 drops of lubricant were instilled, a significant amount of fluid ejection in the form of a sheet that broke up into multiple droplets was observed. Some of these droplets traversed back to the tonometer. Droplets ranging from 100 to 500 µm in diameter were measured.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no droplet generation during NCT performed in a natural setting. However, NCT should be avoided in conditions with high-tear volume (natural or artificial) as it would lead to droplet spread and tactile contamination.

[Current state of ophthalmic tonometry]

Currently, the level of intraocular pressure (IOP) can be assessed with a large number of tonometers, which differ in the principle of action, the place of application and the degree of invasiveness. All the methods in use - except for direct manometry - allow only indirect judgement of the level of ophthalmotonus. The quality of tonometric measurement is influenced by many factors, from the choice of tonometer to the analysis of the results obtained by the doctor. The use of complex methods for assessing the level of intraocular pressure provides additional information that increases its diagnostic value. This article summarizes current information about modern methods of tonometry, and describes their features.

Effectiveness of 4 tonometers in measuring IOP after femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK, SMILE, and transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy

PURPOSE

To test the performance of 4 tonometers in estimating intraocular pressure (IOP) after 3 forms of refractive surgery.

SETTING

Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, China.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

Patients matched for preoperative age, corneal thickness, and myopic correction enrolled for femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), or transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK) were included in the study. For each patient, 4 measurements of IOP were obtained preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively, using the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT-IOP), the Dynamic Contour Tonometer (DCT-IOP), corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc) from the Ocular Response Analyzer, and biomechanically corrected IOP (bIOP) from the Corvis ST. Overall corneal stiffness was also estimated based on the stiffness parameter (SP-A1) provided by the Corvis ST.

RESULTS

The study included 144 eyes of 144 patients. Among the 3 procedures, the smallest variances between preoperative and postoperative IOP estimates and SP-A1 values were observed with the tPRK, followed by SMILE and FS-LASIK. In the tPRK group, no significant differences were observed in both bIOP (-0.18 ± 1.63 mm Hg) and DCT-IOP (-.64 ± 2.34 mm Hg), whereas they were larger and significant in GAT-IOP (-1.78 ± 2.29 mm Hg) and IOPcc (-2.77 ± 1.84 mm Hg). In FS-LASIK and SMILE groups, although there were similar significant reductions in IOP postoperatively, these reductions were still lower in bIOP and DCT-IOP than those in GAT-IOP and IOPcc.

CONCLUSIONS

The bIOP and DCT-IOP were the least affected IOP estimates between the 3 refractive surgery procedures considered. It was evident that tPRK produced significantly smaller reductions in IOP readings than did FS-LASIK and SMILE.

Impact of corneal parameters on intraocular pressure measurements in different tonometry methods

AIM

To evaluate the impact of central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal curvature on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements performed by three different tonometers.

METHODS

IOP in 132 healthy eyes of 66 participants was measured using three different tonometry techniques: Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and ICare rebound tonometer (RT). CCT and corneal curvature were assessed.

RESULTS

In healthy eyes, DCT presents significantly higher values of IOP than GAT (17.34±3.69 and 15.27±4.06 mm Hg, P<0.0001). RT measurements are significantly lower than GAT (13.56±4.33 mm Hg, P<0.0001). Compared with GAT, DCT presented on average 2.51 mm Hg higher values in eyes with CCT<600 µm and 0.99 mm Hg higher results in eyes with CCT≥600 µm. The RT results were lower on average by 1.61 and 1.95 mm Hg than those obtained by GAT, respectively. Positive correlations between CCT in eyes with CCT<600 µm were detected for all IOP measurement techniques, whereas a similar relationship was not observed in eyes with thicker corneas. A correlation between IOP values and keratometry in the group with CCT<600 µm was not detected with any of the tonometry methods. In thicker corneas, a positive correlation was found for GAT and mean keratometry values (R=0.369, P=0.005).

CONCLUSION

The same method should always be chosen for routine IOP control, and measurements obtained by different methods cannot be compared. All analysed tonometry methods are dependent on CCT; thus, CCT should be taken into consideration for both diagnostics and monitoring.

The influence of corneal geometrical and biomechanical properties on tonometry readings in keratoconic eyes

PURPOSE

To identify the effect of corneal geometrical and biomechanical parameters on the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT), non-contact tonometer, iCare Pro Rebound Tonometer (IRT), Tonopen and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA, Goldmann-correlated IOP: IOPg, corneal compensated IOP: IOPcc).

METHODS

We prospectively recruited patients with a tomographically confirmed diagnosis of keratoconus. IOP measurements were performed in the following order: non-contact tonometry, ORA, IRT, GAT and Tonopen. The means of the three IOP measurements were used for the analysis. Correlation analyses were performed to assess the association between tonometer readings and the corneal geometrical and biomechanical parameters including ORA waveform parameters. Tonometer variability was assessed using a stepwise linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients with keratoconus (27 females, mean age 30.8 ± 8.7 years) were evaluated. The highest mean IOP was measured by IOPcc (14.6 ± 2.3 mmHg) followed by IRT IOP (13.0 ± 3.2 mmHg), Tonopen IOP 12.0 ± 2.6 mmHg), GAT IOP (11.7 ± 3.1 mmHg), NCT IOP (10.2 ± 3.2 mmHg) and IOPg (10.2 ± 3.6 mmHg). NCT and IOPg were affected from all corneal parameters including thickness, curvature and biomechanical parameters. While GAT and IRT had significant correlations with corneal resistance factor (CRF) and corneal hysteresis, IOPcc only had a significant correlation with CRF. None of the corneal factors had any statistically significant correlation with Tonopen. CRF predicted tonometer measurement variability in 7 of the 15 inter-device variability assessments.

CONCLUSION

Tonopen was the least affected from the corneal parameters followed by IOPcc and GAT. CRF was a strong determinant of tonometer variability.

A comparison of NCT, Goldman application tonometry values with and without fluorescein

Purpose

The aim of the study was to statistically compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values measured using noncontact tonometer (NCT), Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) with fluorescein (fGAT), and GAT without fluorescein (nGAT). The study was also performed to test whether the values obtained using each technique change in accordance with the central corneal thickness (CCT) and refractive and keratometric values.

Study design

This study was a prospective study of 188 eyes of 94 healthy volunteers. Methods: IOP was measured using fGAT, nGAT and NCT. CCT, refractive values, and keratometric values were measured, and the correlations and differences in the IOP for each tonometer were investigated.

Results

The mean IOP values obtained with the NCT, nGAT, and fGAT were 17.5±3.7, 12.3±2.7, and 12.5±2 mmHg. The mean CCT was 538.2±34.4 µm, the mean refractive value was 0.9±1.2 D, and the mean keratometric value was 43.5±1.5 D. NCT was positively correlated with fGAT and GAT values and was significantly higher than both the values. There were no differences between fGAT and GAT values. No correlation was observed between the CCT and keratometric and refractive values and the difference between NCT and nGAT or fGAT.

Conclusion

Differences in the measurements obtained using nGAT and fGAT were insignificant (P>0.05). Both values were positively correlated with NCT measurements (r =0.354, P<0.05) and were independent of CCT, keratometry, and refraction values. nGAT appears to be suitable for use in routine clinic practice.

Effect of four local anesthetics (tetracaine, proparacaine, lidocaine, and bupivacaine) on intraocular pressure in dogs

PURPOSE

To measure IOP in animals, it is often necessary to use topical anesthetics. The use of these drugs may cause changes in IOP and interfere with the final results. To address this issue, the effects of four local anesthetics (tetracaine, proparacaine, lidocaine, and bupivacaine) on IOP were investigated in ten adult dogs.

METHODS

One drop of tetracaine was instilled in the right eye of half of the dogs and in the left eye of the other dogs; normal saline was instilled in the fellow eyes. The IOP in each dog was measured before and at 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 min after drug instillation using an electronic rebound tonometer. The effects of the other anesthetics were studied in the same way at intervals of at least 1 week.

RESULTS

After instillation of tetracaine, the IOP decreased gradually, such that after 15 min, the IOP was significantly lower than the baseline (p = 0.022) and control values (p = 0.048). Proparacaine also reduced IOP after 10 min compared to baseline values (p = 0.046), but the two other drugs, bupivacaine and lidocaine, had no significant effect on IOP. The duration of eye anesthesia was 16, 20, 22, and 34 min for tetracaine, lidocaine, bupivacaine, and proparacaine, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We recommend using drugs that combine inducing longer anesthesia with producing the smallest change in IOP, such as bupivacaine and, subsequently, lidocaine. Tetracaine and proparacaine have a significant effect on IOP, and if these drugs are used, this effect should be considered.