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

A Comparative Analysis of Intraocular Pressure Measurement Accuracy With Reused iCare Probes

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of reused iCare probes after disinfection with 70% isopropyl alcohol and ethylene oxide gas compared to new iCare probes and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT).

DESIGN

Prospective comparative analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 118 eyes from 59 patients recruited from the Aravind Eye Hospital glaucoma clinic in Tirupati, South India.

METHODS

Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured on each eye using a new iCare tonometer probe, an iCare probe previously used and disinfected 1 time prior (once used probe) and 5 times prior (multiply used probe), as well as with GAT. Probes were disinfected after each use with 70% isopropyl alcohol swabs and ethylene oxide sterilization.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Agreement demonstrated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), mean difference in IOP values with limits of agreement, and Bland-Altman plots among IOP measurement approaches.

RESULTS

Compared to new iCare probes, both once used probes (ICC = 0.989, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.985-0.993) and multiply used probes (ICC = 0.989, 95% CI 0.984-0.992) showed excellent agreement, and the mean difference in IOP was minimal for both once used probes (0.70 mmHg, 95% CI 0.29-1.11) and multiply used probes (0.75 mmHg, 95% CI 0.66-0.82) compared to new probes. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated minimal differences between new and reused probes across the spectrum of IOP. When comparing multiply used probes to once used probes, there was a high level of agreement (0.993) (95% CI 0.990-0.995) and negligible mean IOP difference 0.04 mmHg (95% CI 0.32-0.40). Additionally, ICC values for new probes (0.966, 95% CI 0.951-0.976), once used probes (0.958, 95% CI 0.940-0.971), and multiply used probes (0.957, 95% CI 0.938-0.970) compared to GAT were similar and all showed excellent agreement. Both new and reused iCare probes underestimated IOP by 2 to 3 mmHg compared to GAT.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective comparative analysis, we found that reusing iCare probes up to 5 times does not compromise the accuracy of IOP measurements when disinfected with 70% isopropyl alcohol swabs and ethylene oxide. Reusing iCare probes has the potential to transform care by reducing cost, decreasing environmental waste, and allowing for glaucoma screening camps and increased glaucoma monitoring in low resource settings leading to earlier identification and treatment of glaucoma.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Efficacy of the positioning system when measuring canine intraocular pressures with the Reichert® Tono-Vera® Vet rebound tonometer

OBJECTIVE

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements in dogs taken with the Reichert® Tono-Vera® Vet rebound tonometer with and without the automatic positioning system.

ANIMALS STUDIED

Measurements were taken on 49 eyes from 26 Beagle-derived dogs with variable genetics-four non-glaucomatous and 22 ADAMTS10-mutant dogs affected with different stages of open-angle glaucoma. Seventeen of the 26 dogs were measured 2-4 times on different days with variable intervals since IOP-lowering medications were administered.

PROCEDURES

In each dog, tonometry was performed with the Tono-Vera® Vet using three different methods in a randomized order: (Method 1) Average of three readings with an automatic positioning system; (Method 2) one reading with an automatic positioning system; and (Method 3) average of three readings obtained without the automatic positioning system. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA, Tukey pairwise comparisons, and Bland-Altman plots (MiniTab®).

RESULTS

With each of the three tonometry methods, 116 measurements were taken, resulting in 348 total IOP measurements with a range of 12.8-49.9 mmHg. The means and standard deviations for each method were 25.4 ± 6.9 mmHg (Method 1), 26.0 ± 7.2 mmHg (Method 2), and 26.9 ± 7.7 mmHg (Method 3), with no significant differences (p = .27). Mean IOP variances were also not significantly different between tonometry methods (p = .24 to .78).

CONCLUSIONS

Because mean IOPs and their standard deviations were not statistically different between the three tonometry methods, we conclude that Tono-Vera® Vet measurements conducted without the aid of the positioning system still provide reliable results.

Diagnostic Tests Used During the Ocular Examination

This article provides a review of the required ocular tests during the ophthalmologic examinations of canine and feline patients. Knowledge of medications affecting ocular parameters and awareness of available instrumentation and test materials is essential for accurate diagnoses.

Comparison of three rebound tonometers in normal and glaucomatous dogs

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of the study were to compare intraocular pressure (IOP) readings across a wide range and obtained via three rebound tonometers in ADAMTS10-mutant Beagle-derived dogs with different stages of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and normal control dogs and to investigate the effect of central corneal thickness (CCT).

ANIMALS STUDIED

Measurements were performed on 99 eyes from 50 Beagle-derived dogs with variable genetics-16 non-glaucomatous and 34 with ADAMTS10-OAG. Seventeen OAG eyes were measured twice-with and without the use of IOP-lowering medications.

PROCEDURES

IOP was measured in each eye using three tonometers with their "dog" setting-ICare® Tonovet (TV), ICare® Tonovet Plus® (TVP), and the novel Reichert® Tono-Vera® Vet (TVA)-in randomized order. CCT was measured with the Accutome® PachPen. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA, Tukey pairwise comparisons, and regression analyses of tonometer readings and pairwise IOP-CCT Pearson correlations (MiniTab®).

RESULTS

A total of 116 IOP measurements were taken with each of the three tonometers. When comparing readings over a range of ~7-77 mmHg, mean IOPs from the TV were significantly lower compared with TVP (-4.6 mmHg, p < .001) and TVA (-3.7 mmHg, p = .001). We found no significant differences between TVA and TVP measurements (p = .695). There was a moderate positive correlation between CCT and IOP for TVA (r = 0.53, p < .001), TVP (r = 0.48, p < .001), and TV (r = 0.47, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate strong agreement between TVP and TVA, suggesting that the TVA may similarly reflect true IOP values in canines. CCT influenced IOP measurements of all three tonometers.

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.

Comparison among TonoVet, TonoVet Plus, Tono-Pen Avia Vet, and Kowa HA-2 portable tonometers for measuring intraocular pressure in dogs

Background and Aim:

Tonometers are an important instrument for measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) in the diagnosis of glaucoma or uveitis. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the main types of tonometers with different IOP measurement methodologies in dogs: TonoVet and TonoVet Plus (rebound), Tono-Pen Avia Vet (applanation), and Kowa HA-2 (Goldmann applanation).

Materials and Methods:

IOP was measured in 152 eyes of 76 dogs. A postmortem study was performed by comparing manometry and tonometry values and calculating the correlation coefficient (r²), in vivo real IOP (manometry) among the tonometers was compared, and an outpatient study was conducted with healthy eyes and eyes with signs of glaucoma and uveitis.

Results:

In the postmortem study, the values of r² in descending order were Kowa (0.989), TonoVet Plus (0.984), TonoVet (0.981), and Tono-Pen Avia Vet (0.847). The IOP values in mmHg in the in vivo study were as follows: Aneroid manometer (16.8±2.5.7), TonoVet (18.1±2.9), TonoVet Plus (20.6±2.3), Tono-Pen Avia Vet (17.1±2.5), and Kowa (16.1±1.7); in outpatient clinics: TonoVet (16.8±3.8), TonoVet Plus (19.2±2.9), Tono-Pen Avia Vet (16.2±2.4), and Kowa (15.0±1.3); glaucoma: TonoVet (30.2±3.5), TonoVet Plus (35.0±6.1), Tono-Pen Avia Vet (29.5±4.2), and Kowa (23.9±5.0); and uveitis: TonoVet (14.2±1.4), TonoVet Plus (17.6±1.9), Tono-Pen Avia Vet (13.7±2.1), and Kowa (12.6±1.7).

Conclusion:

There was a strong correlation between IOP values and manometry in all the tonometers. The highest values were obtained with TonoVet Plus and the lowest with Kowa HA-2. All tonometers accurately measured IOP in dogs, including the latest TonoVet Plus, which showed an excellent correlation coefficient.

Comparison of intraocular pressures estimated by rebound and applanation tonometry in dogs with lens instability: 66 cases (2012-2018)

OBJECTIVE

To compare intraocular pressures (IOPs) estimated by rebound and applanation tonometry for dogs with lens instability.

ANIMALS

66 dogs.

PROCEDURES

Medical records of dogs examined between September 2012 and July 2018 were reviewed for diagnoses of anterior (ALL) or posterior (PLL) lens luxation or lens subluxation.

RESULTS

Estimates of IOP obtained with rebound and applanation tonometry significantly differed from each other for all types of lens instability considered collectively (mean ± SE difference between tonometric readings, 8.1 ± 1.3 mm Hg) and specific types of lens instability considered individually (mean ± SE difference between tonometric readings: ALL, 12.8 ± 2.5 mm Hg; PLL, 5.9 ± 1.7 mm Hg; subluxation, 2.8 ± 0.8 mm Hg). Median (range) differences between rebound and applanation tonometer readings for dogs with ALL was 5 mm Hg (-9 to 76 mm Hg), with PLL was 3 mm Hg (-1 to 19 mm Hg), and with lens subluxation was 3 mm Hg (-9 to 18 mm Hg). In eyes with ALL, rebound tonometer readings exceeded applanation tonometer readings on 44 of 60 (73%) occasions.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Rebound tonometry yielded higher estimates of IOP than did applanation tonometry in eyes with ALL and with all types of lens luxation considered collectively. Estimates of IOP in eyes with lens instability should ideally be obtained with both rebound and applanation tonometers. Veterinarians with only one type of tonometer should interpret results for dogs with lens instability concurrent with physical examination findings.

Repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of three tonometers for measuring intraocular pressure in rabbits

The aim of this study was to evaluate repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of three commonly used tonometers in animal research (TonoLab, TonoVet, and TonoPEN AVIA) in a cohort of 24 rabbits. Additionally, the impact of sedation on IOP was investigated in 21 New Zealand White rabbits with the TonoVet tonometer. Repeatability was determined using the coefficient of variation (CoV) for two observers. For the TonoLab (6.55%) and TonoVet (6.38%) the CoV was lower than for the TonoPEN AVIA (10.88%). The reproducibility was highest for the TonoVet (0.2 ± 3.3 mmHg), followed by the TonoLab (0 ± 12.89 mmHg) and lowest for the TonoPEN AVIA (− 1.48 ± 10.3 mmHg). The TonoLab and TonoVet showed the highest agreement (r = 0.85, R² = 0.73). After sedation, a significant IOP reduction (often > 25%) was observed. Our results show that among the three tonometers tested, the TonoVet tonometer is best for use in rabbits while the TonoLab should be avoided. The impact of sedation on IOP was substantial and should be taken into account during experimentation.

Effects of orally administered gabapentin, tramadol, and meloxicam on ocular variables in healthy dogs

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of gabapentin, tramadol, and meloxicam on tear production, intraocular pressure (IOP), pupillary diameter, tear break-up time, and corneal touch threshold in healthy dogs when given orally for 3 days.

ANIMALS

9 healthy research Beagles.

PROCEDURES

A randomized, blinded, case-crossover study with a 6-sequence, 3-treatment, and 3-period design was performed. A 7-day acclimation period was followed by 3 treatment phases, each with a 3-day treatment period followed by a 7-day washout period for 3 different drugs. Block randomization was used to group dogs for treatments with drug A (gabapentin), B (tramadol), or C (meloxicam). Measurements of tear production, IOP, pupillary diameter, tear break-up time, and corneal touch threshold were performed on a schedule. A generalized mixed-effects linear regression model was created for each ocular variable, accounting for repeated measures within individuals.

RESULTS

Intraocular pressure was the only variable to have differed substantially between the first 5 and last 2 days of the acclimation period. When treatment phase, day, time of day, dog identification, baseline value, and eye were accounted for, the mean IOP was lower for dogs during treatment phases with gabapentin or tramadol, compared with meloxicam, but this difference was not considered clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results indicated that a minimum 5-day acclimation period is necessary for IOP measurements to return to baseline in dogs. The statistically identified effect of gabapentin and tramadol on IOP in dogs of the present study warrants further investigation. It is possible that at higher dosages, or in dogs with glaucoma, this effect may become clinically significant.

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

PURPOSE

To demonstrate the effect of different probe-cornea distances during intraocular pressure (IOP) data acquisition in dogs and rats.

ANIMALS STUDIED

Twenty-four conscious dogs and 15 anesthetized Wistar rats.

METHODS

Three interchangeable three-dimensional printed polylactide plastic spacer collars were used in place of the original Icare TonoVet® collar piece, which provided different distances (4, 6, and 8 mm) between the instrument's probe and the corneal surface. IOP values were obtained in sequence by a single observer, with the tonometer probe at a 4-, 6-, and 8-mm distance from the corneal surface. The dogs were gently restrained, and the rats were anesthetized with isoflurane.

RESULTS

Intraocular pressure values obtained at 4, 6, and 8 mm from the TonoVet® probe to corneal surface distance in both dogs and rats were significantly different (P < .01). There was a small positive correlation between IOP (mm Hg) and probe-cornea distance (mm) (r_s  = 0.39 for dogs and r_s  = 0.51 for rats). In dogs, the mean IOP (± SD mm Hg) obtained at different distances were 16.2 ± 3.0 at 4 mm; 17.6 ± 3.4 at 6 mm; and 19.8 ± 3.8 at 8 mm. In rats, IOP values were 8.2 ± 1.5 at 4-mm; 9.4 ± 1.8 at 6-mm; and 10.5 ± 1.5 mm Hg at 8-mm distance.

CONCLUSIONS

Probe-cornea distance of the Icare TonoVet® significantly affects IOP readings, even within the 4- to 8-mm range recommended by the manufacturer.

Comparison of two rebound tonometers in healthy horses

Objective

To obtain a reference range for evaluation of intraocular pressure (IOP) in horses using Tonovet Plus^®, to compare the IOP readings obtained with Tonovet^® and Tonovet Plus^®, and to evaluate the repeatability of readings.

Animals studied and Procedures

Intraocular pressure of 30 client‐owned horses (60 eyes) with no signs of illness or ocular disease was evaluated using Tonovet^® and Tonovet Plus^® rebound tonometers. Horses’ mean age was 10.7 (range 6‐17) years. Triplicate measurements were performed without using sedatives or local anesthetics, with minimal restraint.

Results

Calculated reference intervals (the CLSI robust method) were 14.4‐27.2 mmHg for Tonovet^® and 16.0‐26.1 mmHg for Tonovet Plus^®. Mean values (± standard deviation, SD [± coefficient of variation, CV]) obtained with Tonovet Plus^® (21.6 ± 2.45 mmHg [11.3%]) were on average 0.6 mmHg higher than with Tonovet^® (21.0 ± 3.14 mmHg [15.0%]), and a negligible statistical difference between the devices was found using the paired sample t test (P = .049). The correlation coefficient for the averaged triplicate measurements was 0.73. The average CV was 4.6% and 4.4% for Tonovet^® and Tonovet Plus^®, respectively.

Conclusions

The repeatability of measurements was very good with both devices. The readings between the two devices differed statistically significantly, but the correlation was considered good and the variation was numerically small, and thus, the difference was considered clinically irrelevant. When monitoring disease process or treatment response in an individual patient, repeated readings are best performed using a similar device to avoid false interpretation of results.

Comparative intraocular pressure measurements using three different rebound tonometers through in an ex vivo analysis and clinical trials in canine eyes

Objective

To evaluate the clinical relevance of intraocular pressure (IOP) measured with three different rebound tonometers in an ex vivo analysis and clinical trials in dogs.

Animals and procedures

Ex vivo analysis and clinical trials were performed separately. For the ex vivo analysis, eight enucleated eyes were obtained from four Beagle dogs. IOP values measured with TONOVET^® (TV‐IOP), TONOVET‐Plus^® (TVP‐IOP), and SW‐500^® (SW‐IOP) were compared with manometric IOPs. For clinical trials, each tonometer was evaluated separately, depending on whether TVP‐IOP was higher or lower than 14 mm Hg. One‐way repeatedmeasures analysis of variance, simple linear regression analysis, and Bland‐Altman plots were used for statistical analyses.

Results

In ex vivo analysis, TV‐IOP and TVP‐IOP were not significantly different from manometric IOP. However, SW‐IOP underestimated IOP compared to manometry. Higher discrepancy was observed in TV‐IOP and SW‐IOP with an increase in manometric IOP. In clinical trials, no significant difference was observed between TV‐IOP (9.73 ± 2.92) and TVP‐IOP (11.36 ± 2.23) when TVP‐IOP was lower than 14 mm Hg, but SW‐IOP (8.70 ± 3.03) was significantly lower than TVP‐IOP. TV‐IOP (15.96 ± 6.47) and SW‐IOP (13.09 ± 3.72) were significantly lower than TVP‐IOP (20.08 ± 6.60) when the IOP was higher than 14 mm Hg of TVP‐IOP.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the TONOVET^® and TONOVET‐Plus^® provide a useful approach for ex vivo analysis. In clinical trials, results of TV‐IOP and SW‐IOP were significantly lower than of TVP‐IOP when IOP was higher than 14 mm Hg of TVP‐IOP. The characteristics of rebound tonometers should be considered in clinical settings.