Comparison of current tonometry techniques in measurement of intraocular pressure

To compare four tonometry techniques: Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), Non-contact tonometer (NCT), and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) in the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) and the impact of some corneal biomechanical factors on their performance. In...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Iranian journal of ophthalmology 2017-06, Vol.29 (2), p.92-97
Main Authors: Kouchaki, Behrooz, Hashemi, Hassan, Yekta, Abbasali, khabazkhoob, Mehdi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Agreements
Biomechanics
Cornea
Dynamic contour tonometer
Glaucoma
Goldmann applanation tonometer
Intraocular pressure
Non-contact tonometer
Ocular response analyze
Original Research
Regression analysis
Sensors
Statistical analysis
Studies
Tonometry
Viscoelasticity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To compare four tonometry techniques: Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), Non-contact tonometer (NCT), and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) in the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) and the impact of some corneal biomechanical factors on their performance. In this cross-sectional study, volunteers with normal ophthalmic examination and no history of eye surgery (except for uncomplicated cataract surgery) or trauma were selected. Twenty-five subjects were male, and 21 were female. The mean age was 48 ± 19.2 years. Anterior segment parameters were measured with Scheimpflug imaging. IOP was measured with GAT, DCT, NCT, and ORA in random order. A 95% limit of agreement of IOPs was analyzed. The impact of different parameters on the measured IOP with each device was evaluated by regression analysis. The average IOP measured with GAT, DCT, NCT, and ORA was 16.4 ± 3.5, 18.1 ± 3.4, 16.2 ± 3.9, and 17.3 ± 3.4 mmHg, respectively. The difference of IOP measured with NCT and GAT was not significant (P = 0.382). Intraocular pressure was significantly different between GAT with DCT and IOPCC (P 
ISSN:2452-2325
2452-2325
DOI:10.1016/j.joco.2016.08.010