Age differences in central and peripheral intraocular pressure using a rebound tonometer

A comparison of iCare and Goldmann applanation tonometry measurements during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

To evaluate factors associated with differences in intraocular pressure (IOP) readings between iCare and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in established glaucoma patients.

METHODS

This retrospective comparative study included clinical data of 350 eyes from 350 established glaucoma patients who had iCare and GAT IOP measured by an ophthalmic technician and a glaucoma specialist, respectively. The main outcome measure was the difference in IOP measurements of the right eyes with iCare and GAT.

RESULTS

The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between GAT and iCare was 0.90. The mean IOP difference between tonometers was - 0.18 ± 2.89 mmHg. Bland-Altman plots indicated a 95% limit of agreement of - 5.8 to 5.5 mmHg. Central corneal thickness (CCT) and age were significantly correlated with the difference in IOPs of the iCare and GAT. GAT-IOP and age were significantly associated with the absolute difference in measured IOP of the two tonometers. The difference in measurements was not significantly associated with prior glaucoma surgery, average global index of optical coherence tomography, axial length, technician years of experience and certification, and IOP range.

CONCLUSION

Although there is good agreement between the iCare and GAT mean values, these devices are not interchangeable in glaucoma patients due to the wide range of the limit of agreement.

Intraocular pressure measurement using ICare rebound tonometer in different positions of eye and different locations on cornea

Intraocular pressure (IOP) is one of the most crucial aspects for diagnosis and treatment plan among patients with glaucoma. Although the gold standard for IOP measurement is Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT)[1], it must be mounted to a slit lamp biomicroscope. However, rebound tonometer has become popular due to its ease of operation and portable design, does not require topical anesthesia, and results do not differ significantly from those of GAT[2]. The purpose of this cross-sectional study is to investigate the difference in IOP measurement with iCare IC200 in different angles of the eye and different corneal locations. All participants underwent IOP measurement by GAT twice. Then, IOP was measured with iCare by a single physician. IOP was measured in a straight manner in the upright patient position; then participants were asked to look at fixation targets, which located in four different points. IOP was measured in upgaze, downgaze, medial gaze, and lateral gaze. Then, IOP was measured at 2 mm from limbus in superior, inferior, nasal, and temporal cornea. All methods were measured twice, and the mean was used for calculation. The physician who measured IOP by iCare was masked from GAT results. A total of 168 eyes were tested with a mean age of 62.15 ± 12.34 years. Mean IOP measured by GAT and iCare at the central cornea was 15.53 ± 5.57 and 14.78 ± 6.14 mmHg, respectively. The standardized mean difference (SMD) between iCare and GAT was 0.13 (-0.09-0.34), which is insignificant. The average IOP was 0.6, 0.47, 0.91, and 0.44 mmHg lower than the primary position in upgaze, downgaze, medial gaze, and lateral gaze 15 degrees angulated positions respectively (p<.01). IOPs at 2 mm from limbus in the inferior, nasal, and temporal cornea were 0.5, 0.69, and 0.57 mmHg lower than IOP measured at the central cornea (p=<.01). IOP measurements with iCare in different angles of eye were statistically significantly lower than in the primary position. Similarly, IOPs at different locations on cornea were lower than at the central cornea. However, the difference in IOP measurements with iCare in different angles of the eye and different corneal locations was in the trivial range and might be clinically insignificant.

Assessment of intraocular pressure measurement between Goldman applanation tonometer, rebound tonometer, non-contact tonometer, and its correlation with central corneal thickness

Purpose

To compare readings of intraocular pressure (IOP) taken with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), the non-contact tonometer (NCT), and the rebound tonometer (RBT), and to compare their correlation with central corneal thickness (CCT).

Methods

This was a prospective, cross-sectional, observational study to which patients above 18 years of age were enrolled. A total of 400 eyes of 200 non-glaucomatous patients underwent IOP recordings using the GAT, NCT, and RBT, and CCT was also noted. Informed consent of the patients was taken. The IOP readings taken via the three methods were compared and correlated with CCT. Paired t test was used to compare the two devices. Simple and multivariate linear regression analyses were used to study the relationship between factors. A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Correlation was determined using the Pearson correlation coefficient, and a Bland-Altman graph was plotted.

Results

Mean IOP measured by the NCT was 15.65 ± 2.80 mmHg, by the RBT was 14.23 ± 3.05 mmHg, and by the GAT was 14.69 ± 2.97 mmHg. The mean CCT was 510.61 ± 33.83 microns. The difference between mean IOP recorded by the NCT and that by the RBT was 1.41 ± 2.39 mmHg, between the NCT and GAT was 0.95 ± 2.03 mmHg, and between the GAT and RBT was 0.45 ± 2.22 mmHg. The difference between the IOP values was statistically significant (P < 0.005). All tonometers showed a statistically significant correlation with CCT, but it was observed that the NCT had a stronger correlation (0.4037).

Conclusion

The IOP readings taken by all the three methods were comparable; however, RBT values were closer to GAT values. CCT did influence the IOP values, and this should be kept in mind while evaluating.

[The effect of body position on the results of central and paracentral rebound tonometry]

PURPOSE

This study analyzes the fluctuations of intraocular pressure (IOP) and clarifies the error of paracentral rebound tonometry associated with change in body position.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 45 healthy volunteers aged 25.4±2.1 years. First we performed rebound tonometry in the sitting position in the center of the cornea and 3-4 mm from the temporal and nasal sides (Icare-c, Icare-n, Icare-t, respectively) and bidirectional applanation tonometry (IOPcc - corneal compensated, IOPg - Goldmann tonometry). Then we measured Icare-c, Icare-n, Icare-t in the supine position, and after 5 minutes repeated Icare-c in the supine position. After this, we measured Icare-c, IOPcc and IOPg in the sitting position.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Initial IOPcc and IOPg were 4.6±2.8 and 14.8±2.8 mm Hg. Initial Icare-c, Icare-t, and Icare-n measurements amounted to 15.0±1.9, 15.7±1.5 and 16.3±1.3 mm Hg; in the supine position the measurements were 16.4±2.1, 17.2±1.7 and 17.1±1.9 mm Hg. Paracentral measurements differed from Icare-c in both sitting and supine positions; only between Icare-t and Icare-n measured in the supine position there were no significant differences. The results of Icare-c, Icare-t, and Icare-n in body position change were comparable. Icare-c measured after 5 minutes in the supine position increased up to 16.6±2.4 mm Hg. Final IOPcc and IOPg did not differ from the initial measurements. Final Icare-c was lower than the initial result by 0.8±0.2 mm Hg, and lower than both supine Icare-c measurements by 2.1±0.2 and 2.6±0.2 mm Hg.

CONCLUSION

Paracentral rebound tonometry findings exceed those of rebound tonometry in central cornea, but in body position change the alteration of measurements in the same points on the cornea are comparable. In the supine position IOP increases on average by 1.0-1.5 mm Hg compared to the sitting position.

Comparison between the rebound (TD - 8000 portable) and applanation tonometer (Tono-Pen AviaTM) managed by different evaluators for intraocular pressure measurements in rabbits

Abstract This study aimed to compare values of intraocular pressure (IOP) by different tonometers and evaluators (veterinary ophthalmologist specialist and veterinary not a specialist). For this, 30 rabbits were used, and in all (n = 60 eyes), the IOP was initially measured with a rebound tonometer (model TD - 8000 portable, Apramed Indústria e Comércio de Equipamentos Médicos Ltda) and, subsequently, with an applanation tonometer (portable model Tono-Pen AviaTM®, Reichert Technologies®, USA). With the two devices, the measurements in mmHg were performed in the central region of the corneas, always performed in the same period, by a professional veterinary ophthalmologist (specialist) and a professional veterinary (not a specialist). Data were statistically compared using the simple analysis of variance test. With the rebound tonometer, IOP ranged from 7 to 14 mmHg when measured by both evaluators; while with the applanation tonometer, from 9 to 15 mmHg by the specialist and from 8 to 16 mmHg by the non-specialist. In the right eyes, the IOP measured by the applanation tonometer by the non-experienced evaluator was statistically lower than the specialist's values; yet, the results of the two evaluators were higher in these same eyes when compared with those of the rebound tonometer. In the left eyes, the IOP measured by the applanation tonometer by the non-experienced evaluator was statistically higher than the specialist's values with the rebound tonometer. Thus, it was possible to infer that, regardless of experience in the area, the applanation tonometer indicated higher mean values of IOP in both eyes and, about the evaluators, the means of the measurements performed by the specialist were higher compared to the non-professional specialist.

Comparação entre o tonômetro de rebote (TD - 8000 portable) e aplanação (Tono-Pen AviaTM) manuseados por diferentes avaliadores para mensurações da pressão intraocular em coelhos

Resumo Este estudo teve como objetivo comparar os valores da pressão intraocular (PIO) por diferentes tonômetros e avaliadores (veterinário oftalmologista especialista e veterinário não especialista). Para isso, foram utilizados 30 coelhos, em todos (n = 60 olhos), a PIO foi medida inicialmente com um tonômetro de rebote (model TD - 8000 portable, Apramed Indústria e Comércio de Equipamentos Médicos Ltda) e, posteriormente, com um tonômetro de aplanação (portable model Tono-Pen AviaTM®, Reichert Technologies®, USA). Com os dois aparelhos, as medidas em mmHg foram realizadas na região central das córneas, sempre no mesmo período, por um profissional oftalmologista veterinário (especialista) e um profissional veterinário (não especialista). Os dados foram comparados estatisticamente por meio do teste de análise de variância simples. Com o tonômetro de rebote, a PIO variou de 7 a 14 mmHg quando medida por ambos os avaliadores; enquanto com o tonômetro de aplanação, de 9 a 15 mmHg pelo especilista e de 8 a 16 mmHg pelo não especialista. Nos olhos direitos, a PIO medida pelo tonômetro de aplanação pelo avaliador não experiente foi estatisticamente inferior aos valores do especialista; ainda, os resultados dos dois avaliadores foram maiores nestes mesmos olhos quando comparados com os do tonômetro de rebote. Nos olhos esquerdos, a PIO medida pelo tonômetro de aplanação pelo avaliador não experiente foi estatisticamente superior aos valores do especialista com o tonômetro de rebote. Assim, foi possível inferir que, independente da experiência na área, o tonômetro de aplanação indicou maiores valores médios de PIO em ambos os olhos e, em relação aos avaliadores, as médias das medidas realizadas pelos especialistas foram maiores em relação ao não especialista.

In vivo measures of anterior scleral resistance in humans with rebound tonometry

PURPOSE

To measure regional variations in anterior scleral resistance (ASR) using a ballistic rebound tonometer (RBT) and examine whether the variations are significantly affected by ethnicity and refractive error (RE).

METHODS

ASR was measured using a RBT (iCare TA01) following calibration against the biomechanical properties of agarose biogels. Eight scleral regions (nasal, temporal, superior, inferior, inferior-nasal, inferior-temporal, superior-nasal and superior-temporal) were measured at locations 4mm from the limbus. Subjects were 130 young adults comprising three ethnic groups whose RE distributions [MSE (D) ± S.D.] incorporated individuals categorised as without-myopia (NM; MSE ≥ -0.50) and with-myopia (WM; MSE < -0.50); British-White (BW): 26 NM + 0.52 ± 1.15D; 22 WM -3.83 ± 2.89D]; British-South-Asian (BSA): [9 NM + 0.49 ± 1.06D; 11 WM -5.07 ± 3.76D; Hong-Kong-Chinese (HKC): [11 NM + 0.39 ± 0.66D; 49 WM -4.46 ± 2.70D]. Biometric data were compiled using cycloplegic open-field autorefraction and the Zeiss IOLMaster. Two- and three-way repeated measures analysis of variances (anovas) tested regional differences for RBT values across both refractive status and ethnicity whilst stepwise forward multiple linear regression was used as an exploratory test.

RESULTS

Significant regional variations in ASR were identified for the BW, BSA and HKC (p < 0.001) individuals; superior-temporal region showed the lowest levels of resistance whilst the inferior-nasal region the highest. Compared to the BW and BSA groups, the HKC subjects displayed a significant increase in mean resistance for each respective region (p < 0.001). With the exception of the inferior region, ethnicity was found to be the chief predictor for variation in the scleral RBT values for all other regions. Mean RE group differences were insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel application of RBT to the anterior sclera confirm regional variation in ASR. Greater ASR amongst the HKC group than the BW and BSA individuals suggests that ethnic differences in anterior scleral biomechanics may exist.

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

The rebound tonometer has a unique mechanism for measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) and has become popular worldwide due to its ease of use. The most notable advantages are the lack of an air-puff and need for topical anesthesia, ease of operation and transport, and the ability to use it with children. Four rebound tonometers (Icare® TA01i, Icare PRO, Icare HOME, and Icare ic100) are currently available for clinical examination. It is important to understand the characteristics of each tonometer and select the most appropriate one because the IOP values and the purpose of measurement are different. In this review, with the goal of improving the understanding of a range of tonometers, the issues with each device are discussed.

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

The objective of this study was to assess the variability of readings made using the Tonovet^® rebound tonometer for measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) in the peripheral cornea and in angulated positions on the canine corneal surface. Forty-six client-owned dogs admitted for ophthalmic evaluation at the Queen's Veterinary School Hospital, University of Cambridge were included in the study. IOP readings were taken at a variety of locations and using the tonometer at a number of different angles to the cornea: 1) Perpendicularly at center of the cornea (CC); 2) At the center of the cornea but with the tonometer positioned at four angles, and 3) At four different points on the peripheral cornea. All values were compared with the values recorded at the recommended CC position. IOP values were significantly underestimated in seven positions, with median and interquartile range from 12.1 ± 4 mmHg (nasal on periphery) to 15 ± 5 mmHg (laterally angled at center), varying between 0 mmHg to 2.9 mmHg from the CC value. While dorsally angled in the central cornea were not significantly different from those at CC (p = 0.09). Median values were lower for measurements in peripheral positions when compared to angled central positions. These results demonstrate that angling the tonometer or measuring in peripheral regions can result in small but statistically significant underestimation of IOP values.

Agreement of patient-measured intraocular pressure using rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in glaucoma patients

This study aims to determine the agreement of patient-measured intraocular pressure (IOP) using rebound tonometry with ophthalmologist-measured IOP using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). Fifty-three glaucoma patients used rebound tonometry (Icare ONE, Icare Finland Oy., Finland) to measure their own IOP in ambient environments for 1 week, 5 times per day. Clinic IOP measurements were performed by ophthalmologists using GAT and by patients using rebound tonometry on examination days 1, 4 and 7 of the same week. The agreement between the two tonometries was evaluated by modified Bland-Altman plots and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was determined. Differences in ICCs of them among the three examination days were evaluated by bootstrap resampling analysis. Respective within-measurement ICC of GAT and rebound tonometry were 0.98 and 0.94 on Day 1, 0.98 and 0.93 on Day 4, and 0.96 and 0.92 on Day 7. In a modified Bland-Altman plot, the mean difference ±1 standard deviation (SD) between the two tonometries was 0.15 ± 0.65 mmHg (p = 0.682). Between-measurement ICC were 0.66, 0.76 and 0.73 on the 3 examination days. There was no significant difference among ICCs. In conclusion, patient-measured IOP using rebound tonometry and ophthalmologist-measured IOP using GAT demonstrate good agreement.

Systematic Review of Current Devices for 24-h Intraocular Pressure Monitoring

Glaucoma is a common optic neuropathy that can lead to irreversible vision loss, and intraocular pressure (IOP) is the only known modifiable risk factor. The primary method of treating glaucoma involves lowering IOP using medications, laser and/or invasive surgery. Currently, we rely on in-office measurements of IOP to assess diurnal variation and to define successful management of disease. These measurements only convey a fraction of a patient's circadian IOP pattern and may frequently miss peak IOP levels. There is an unmet need for a reliable and accurate device for 24-h IOP monitoring. The 24-h IOP monitoring devices that are currently available and in development fall into three main categories: self-monitoring, temporary continuous monitoring, and permanent continuous monitoring. This article is a systematic review of current and future technologies for measuring IOP over a 24-h period.

The measurement of intraocular pressure over positive soft contact lenses by rebound tonometry

PURPOSE

To investigate if the accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using rebound tonometry over disposable hydrogel (etafilcon A) contact lenses (CL) is affected by the positive power of the CLs.

METHODS

The experimental group comprised 26 subjects, (8 male, 18 female). IOP measurements were undertaken on the subjects' right eyes in random order using a Rebound Tonometer (ICare). The CLs had powers of +2.00D and +6.00D. Measurements were taken over each contact lens and also before and after the CLs had been worn.

RESULTS

The IOP measure obtained with both CLs was significantly lower compared to the value without CLs (t test; p<0.001) but no significant difference was found between the two powers of CLs.

CONCLUSIONS

Rebound tonometry over positive hydrogel CLs leads to a certain degree of IOP underestimation. This result did not change for the two positive lenses used in the experiment, despite their large difference in power and therefore in lens thickness. Optometrists should bear this in mind when measuring IOP with the rebound tonometer over plus power contact lenses.

Detecting IOP Fluctuations in Glaucoma Patients

Lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) remains the guiding principle of glaucoma management. Although IOP is the only treatable risk factor, its 24-hour behavior is poorly understood. Current glaucoma management usually relies on single IOP measurements during clinic hours, even though IOP is a dynamic parameter with rhythms dependent on individual patients. It has further been shown that most glaucoma patients have their highest IOP measurements outside clinic hours. The fact that these IOP peaks go largely undetected may explain why certain patients progress in their disease despite treatment. Nevertheless, single IOP measurements have determined all major clinical guidelines regarding glaucoma treatment. Other potentially informative parameters, such as fluctuations in IOP and peak IOP, have been neglected, and effects of IOP-lowering interventions on such measures are largely unknown. Continuous 24-hour IOP monitoring has been an interest for more than 50 years, but only recent technological advances have provided clinicians with a device for such an endeavor. This review discusses current uses and shortcomings of current measurement techniques, and provides an overview on current and future methods for 24-hour IOP assessment. It may be possible to incorporate continuous IOP monitoring into clinical practice, potentially to reduce glaucoma-related vision loss.

Fundamentals and Advances in Tonometry

According to the World Health Organization, glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. Although intraocular pressure (IOP) is not considered any more to be a defining feature of the disease, its lowering remains the only treatment option for glaucoma. Therefore, accurate and precise measurement of IOP is the cornerstone of glaucoma. Intraocular pressure is a highly dynamic physiological parameter with individual circadian rhythms. The main limitation of current tonometry methods remains the static and mostly office-based nature of their measurements. This review provides a brief historical overview on tonometry and discusses current tonometry instruments. In recent years, approaches to 24-hour IOP monitoring have been introduced, and there is hope that they may become part of routine clinical management in the future.

Assessment of IcareONE rebound tonometer for self-measuring intraocular pressure

PURPOSE

To evaluate the precision of the IcareONE rebound tonometer, which was developed for self-measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) and to compare IcareONE measurement with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT).

METHODS

Twenty-four healthy eyes and 81 glaucomatous eyes were enrolled. IOP measurements (three times per session) with IcareONE were made in a random order by an ophthalmologist (Icare(O)) and by the subject (Icare(S)). Intraclass correlation coefficients (CCs), kappa values and mean values of IOP were compared among the two types of Icare recordings and GAT. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess agreement between methods. Multiple regression analysis was performed to identify the subject factors that influenced the discordant measurements between IcareONE and GAT.

RESULTS

The mean value of Icare(O) and Icare(S) measurements was 13.5±5.2 and 13.5±5.4 mmHg, respectively, neither of which was significantly different from GAT (13.8±4.4). The intrarater CC of Icare(O) and Icare(S) was 0.968 and 0.885, respectively. The intermethod CC and weighted kappa between Icare(O) and Icare(S) were 0.907 and 0.684, respectively. All pairwise correlations between the two types of IOP measurement showed coefficients of determination >0.8. Bland-Altman analysis did not show any proportional biases. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the differences between GAT and Icare(O) or Icare(S) were positively correlated with central corneal thickness (CCT) and negatively correlated with age.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraocular pressure measurements with IcareONE by a physician and by the subject showed excellent agreement with GAT measurements; IcareONE measurements between a physician and the subject had high intrarater reliability, and good agreement thicker CCT led IcareONE measurement to overestimate IOP, while higher age caused it to underestimate IOP compared with GAT.

Intraocular pressure measurement using rebound tonometer for deviated angles and positions in human eyes

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of positional deviations on rebound tonometer measurement of intraocular pressure in humans.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Intraocular pressure was measured using the Icare rebound tonometer on the right eyes of 53 subjects in various conditions as follows: first, at a distance of 4, 6, or 8 mm from the center of the cornea with the probe perpendicular to the corneal plane; then, at 2 mm from the limbus in the nasal and temporal regions with the probe perpendicular to the corneal plane or along the visual axis; and lastly, with the angled probe touching the central cornea at angles of 10° or 20°.

RESULTS

Bland-Altman plots between the Goldmann applanation tonometer and rebound tonometer at various conditions revealed 95% limits of agreement ranging from ±4.5 to ±5.6 mm Hg. Intraocular pressures measured using the rebound tonometer were significantly lower than those measured using the Goldmann applanation tonometer when the rebound tonometer probe was placed 2 mm from the limbus in the temporal or nasal regions with the probe along the visual axis or when the probe was angled to touch the central cornea at an angle of 10° or 20°. In other positions, the intraocular pressures measured using the rebound tonometer were not significantly different. The rebound tonometer, noncontact tonometer, and Tonopen XL showed good agreement with the Goldmann applanation tonometer for intraocular pressure readings under optimal conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

The intraocular pressures determined using the rebound tonometer were approximately equal to those obtained using the Goldmann applanation tonometer when the rebound tonometer measurements were made with the probe perpendicular to the corneal plane, irrespective of the location, that is, at the central cornea or 2 mm from the limbus.

The effect of hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lenses on the measurement of intraocular pressure with rebound tonometry

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using rebound tonometry over disposable hydrogel (etafilcon A) and silicone hydrogel (senofilcon A) contact lenses (CLs) of different powers.

METHODS

The experimental group comprised 36 subjects (19 male, 17 female). IOP measurements were undertaken on the subject's right eyes in random order using a rebound tonometer (ICare). The CLs had powers of +2.00D, -2.00D and -6.00D. Six measurements were taken over each contact lens and also before and after the CLs had been worn.

RESULTS

A good correlation was found between IOP measurements with and without CLs (all r≥0.80; p<0.05). Bland Altman plots did not show any significant trend in the difference in IOP readings with and without CLs as a function of IOP value. A two-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of material and power (p<0.01) but no interaction. All the comparisons between the measurements without CLs and with hydrogel CLs were significant (p<0.01). The comparisons with silicone hydrogel CLs were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Rebound tonometry can be reliably performed over silicone hydrogel CLs. With hydrogel CLs, the measurements were lower than those without CLs. However, despite the fact that these differences were statistically significant, their clinical significance was minimal.

Clinical evaluation of the IOPen® in a glaucomatous population

The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement of measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) taken by a rebound tonometer (IOPen®), in comparison to a reference Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in a glaucomatous population. Both eyes from 60 patients were assessed with the two tonometers, the induction tonometry was performed first by an experienced optometrist, and the GAT by an ophthalmologist. In this study, statistically significant differences were found when comparing the IOPen® tonometer with the GAT tonometer (p < 0.001), mean differences were -4.81 ± 4.31 and -4.76 ± 5.76 mmHg (mean ± S.D.) for the right eye and left eye respectively These values represent an underestimation in the present population by the IOPen® when compared with the GAT. Frequency distribution of differences demonstrated that in more than 71.6% of the measurements the IOP readings differed by more than 3 mmHg between the two tonometers. These results suggest that IOPen® should be used with great caution in the determination of IOP.

Comparison of the IOPen and iCare rebound tonometers with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population

This study proposes to evaluate the level of accuracy of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements of a second generation rebound tonometer (IOPen, taking as references the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT) and the iCare rebound tonometer. The right eyes of 101 consecutive clinical patients were assessed with the three tonometers. The IOPen and iCare measurements were taken by two different optometrists and the GAT by an ophthalmologist. In this study, statistically significant differences were found when comparing the IOPen tonometer with the other two tonometers (p < 0.001). The IOPen underestimated the IOP value when compared to the GAT and the iCare (mean differences were 2.94 +/- 4.65 mmHg and 3.20 +/- 4.72 mmHg (mean +/- S.D.), respectively). The frequency distribution of differences demonstrated that in more than 55% of measurements the IOP readings differed by more than 3 mmHg between the IOPen and the GAT. Based on the present population study, these results suggest that IOPen measurements should be interpreted with caution.

Correlations between corneal biomechanical properties measured with the ocular response analyzer and ICare rebound tonometry

PURPOSE

To investigate the biomechanical properties of the normal cornea, and correlate them with central and peripheral corneal thickness and age.

METHODS

Seventy-six right eyes of volunteers were measured with Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA), ICare rebound tonometry and an ultrasound pachymeter at corneal center and at 4 mm from corneal center in the nasal and temporal directions.

RESULTS

ICare readings were significantly correlated with central and peripheral corneal thickness and corneal biomechanical properties. Corneal resistance factor was the biomechanical parameter with the higher correlation with ICare intraocular pressure (IOP) values. ICare tonometry at center and Goldmann equivalent IOP obtained with ORA were significantly higher for thicker than thinner corneas (P<0.05). IOP compensated for corneal properties with the ORA was lower than the remaining IOP values measured in the study. Higher correlation was found between Goldmann equivalent IOP with ORA and ICare IOP values.

CONCLUSIONS

IOP values obtained with the rebound tonometer are higher in thicker corneas and are positively correlated with biomechanical corneal parameters, namely corneal resistance factor. Although corneal thickness plays a significant role in rebound tonometry, elastic and viscous properties of the cornea seem to play a significant role in the interaction of the tonometer probe with the ocular surface. However, the mechanism behind this process is presently unknown.

Factors affecting intraocular pressure in lions

The aim of this study was to conduct a detailed analysis of the relationship between age and intraocular pressure (IOP) in lions. Tonometry was conducted in 33 lions aged 5 days to 80 months. Age was significantly associated with IOP (P<0.005). Mean IOP was 12.8+/- and 23.9+/-4.1 mmHg in lions < or =1 year old and >1 year old, respectively. IOP linearly rose with age during the first 20 months of life, plateaued until approximately 40 months, and then gradually declined (r=0.85). Age-related changes in IOP were highly correlated with ultrasonographic measurements of intraocular dimensions (r > or = 0.72), and may be a determinant factor in developmental ocular growth. The dramatic rise in IOP of young lions is similar to that observed in children, but has not been previously demonstrated in animals. Significant IOP differences between lion sub-species were also demonstrated.

Age-related changes in the human visual system and prevalence of refractive conditions in patients attending an eye clinic

PURPOSE

To retrospectively report the trends of change in several parameters of the human visual system over a wide age range in patients attending an eye clinic.

SETTING

University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.

METHODS

The clinical records of 2654 patients were retrospectively reviewed, and the age, sex, spherocylindrical refraction, visual acuity, keratometry, and intraocular pressure were obtained. Descriptive values for each parameter and the correlations with age and between different parameters were calculated. Vectorial components of refraction, including blur, were also derived from clinical refractive data and then analyzed.

RESULTS

Several parameters changed significantly with age, particularly in patients in their sixties and older. An increase in the blur component was mainly associated with astigmatic progression and a trend toward against-the-rule orientation and had the highest correlation with total astigmatism (r= -0.319; P<.001) and visual acuity (r= -0.442; P<.001). Refractive conditions had the most homogeneous distribution in the first decade of life and the most heterogeneous distribution in the group between 61 years and 70 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Best corrected visual acuity began to decrease after the 50s, while changes in the blur component were not patent until the 60s to 70s. This could be explained by the poorer optical quality of the human eye in adulthood and elderly persons. Clinically, these changes could be attributed to changes in ocular astigmatism and have an impact on the best visual acuity achievable with optical compensation.

Technical note: a comparison of central and peripheral intraocular pressure using rebound tonometry

PURPOSE

To compare central and peripheral intraocular pressure (IOP) readings obtained with rebound tonometry.

METHODS

Intraocular pressure was measured on the right eye of 153 patients (65 males, 88 females), aged from 21 to 85 years (mean +/- S.D., 55.5 +/- 15.2 years) with the ICare rebound tonometer at centre, and 2 mm from the limbus (in the nasal and temporal regions along the 0-180 degrees corneal meridian).

RESULTS

Intraocular pressure values obtained with the ICare were 14.9 +/- 2.8; 14.1 +/- 2.5 and 14.5 +/- 2.7 mmHg at centre, nasal and temporal corneal locations, respectively. On average, nasal and temporal IOP readings were 0.75 and 0.37 mmHg lower than the central reading (p < 0.05 and p > 0.05, respectively). A highly significant correlation was found between central and peripheral measurements in nasal (r(2) = 0.905; p < 0.001) and temporal (r(2) = 0.879; p < 0.001) regions along the horizontal meridian. Almost 80% of patients presented nasal IOP values within +/-1 mmHg of the central value.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraocular pressure values measured with the ICare rebound tonometer on the nasal corneal region is slightly lower on average and highly correlated with IOP values recorded at corneal centre. Both nasal and temporal readings are in good agreement with central IOP, and could be used to obtain a reliable estimate of rebound IOP in corneas where central readings cannot be taken.

The influence of corneal properties on rebound tonometry

PURPOSE

To determine the influence of corneal thickness, corneal hysteresis (CH), and corneal resistance factor (CRF) on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using the iCARE rebound tonometer.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred twenty-five eyes of 125 normal healthy subjects.

METHODS

Intraocular pressure was determined in all subjects using the iCARE at both central and temporal corneal regions. Corneal thickness at these 2 regions was determined by ultrasonic pachymetry. Corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor were measured using an ocular response analyzer. Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) was also performed on all eyes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Intraocular pressure, corneal thickness, corneal hysteresis, and corneal resistance factor.

RESULTS

Although the peripheral cornea was significantly thicker than the central cornea, IOPs obtained by the iCARE at the 2 regions were similar and significantly higher than GAT measurements. There were an overestimation at higher IOPs and an underestimation at lower IOPs relative to GAT measurements. Multiple regression analysis showed a significant correlation between the iCARE and CH (partial correlation r = -0.67, P<0.01) and CRF (partial correlation r = 0.82, P<0.01). The correlation between the iCARE and central corneal thickness was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Rebound tonometry is affected by corneal properties including CH and CRF but not corneal thickness.