Clinical comparison of Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in asymmetric open-angle glaucoma

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 16, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 694-699

  Sullivan Mee, Michael ^a   Halverson, Kathy D ^a   Qualls, Clifford ^b  

^a VA Medical Center   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Central corneal thickness; Corneal biomechanical properties; Dynamic contour tonometry; Glaucoma; Goldmann applanation tonometry; Intraocular pressure; Tonometry

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OCULOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; STUDENT T TEST; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TONOMETRY, OCULAR; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 37349013501     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3180408dc6     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Kamppeter BA, Jonas JB. Dynamic contour tonometry for intraocular pressure measurement. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140: 318-320.
2. Schneider E, Grehn F. Intraocular pressure measurement-comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:2-6.
3. Koetcha A, White ET, Shewry JM, et al. The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1572-1575.
4. Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J, et al. Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relationship to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:1532-1537.
5. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Vico E, et al. Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and goldmann tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:2156-2162.
6. Ku JY, Danesh-Meyer HV, Craig JP, et al. Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Eye. 2006;20:191-198.
7. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldmann applanation tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:3118-3121.
8. Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J, et al. Correlation between intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness, stage of glaucoma, and demographic patient data: prospective analysis of biophysical parameters in tertiary glaucoma practice populations. J Glaucoma. 2006;15: 91-97.
9. Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Accuracy of dynamic contour tonometry compared with applanation tonometry in human cadaver eyes of different hydration states. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243:359-366.
10. Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Dynamic contour tonometry: a comparative study on human cadaver eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:1287-1293.
11. Weber A, Boehm AG, Spoerl E, et al. The effect of corneal thickness, corneal curvature and axial length on IOP measurements taken by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:E-Abstract 4444.
12. Neuburger M, Lautebach S, Pache M, et al. Dynamic contour tonometry vs. intracameral IOP measurements-first results. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:E-Abstract 4447.
13. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Quigg JM, et al. Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1187-1194.
14. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study Investigators. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study: 2. Visual Field Test Scoring and Reliability. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1445-1455.
15. Doyle A, Lachkar Y. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldmann applanation tonometry over a wide range of central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:288-292.
16. Levine RA, Demirel S, Fan J, et al, and the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. Asymmetries and visual field summaries as predictors of glaucoma in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:3896-3903.
17. Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;44:367-408.
18. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:714-720.
19. Sullivan-Mee M, Gentry JM, Qualls C. Relationship between asymmetric central corneal thickness and glaucomatous visual field loss within the same patient. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83: 516-519.
20. Herndon LW, Weizer JS, Stinnett SS. Central corneal thickness as a risk factor for advanced glaucoma damage. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:17-21.
21. Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:146-155.
22. Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S. Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol. 1975;53:34-43.
23. Whitacre MM, Stein RA, Hassanein K. The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;115: 592-596.
24. Feltgen N, Leifert D, Funk J. Correlation between central corneal thickness, applanation tonometry, and direct intracameral IOP readings. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:85-87.
25. Wolfs RC, Klaver CC, Vingerling JR, et al. Distribution of central corneal thickness and its association with intraocular pressure: The Rotterdam Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123:767-772.
26. Shah S, Chatterjee A, Mathai M, et al. Relationship between corneal thickness and measured intraocular pressure in a general ophthalmology clinic. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:2154-2160.
27. Singh RP, Goldberg I, Graham SL, et al. Central corneal thickness, tonometry, and ocular dimensions in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma. 2001;10:206-210.
28. Myrowitz EH, Kouzis AC, O'Brien TP. High interocular corneal symmetry in average simulated keratometry, central corneal thickness, and posterior elevation. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82:428-431.