New ways to measure intraocular pressure

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 122-126

  ElMallah, Mohammed K ^a   Asrani, Sanjay G ^a,b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY EYE CENTER   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Corneal thickness; Glaucoma; Intraocular pressure; Tonometry

Indexed keywords

ANXIETY; BIOMECHANICS; CORNEA; CORNEA THICKNESS; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; HYSTERESIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; OCULOGRAPHY; OCULOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY; PRESSURE MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; VISION;

BIOMECHANICS; CORNEA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; TONOMETRY, OCULAR;

EID: 40049104749     PISSN: 10408738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3282f391ae     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S. Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1975; 53:34-43.
2. Whitacre MM, Stein RA, Hassanein K. The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 1993; 115:592-596.
3. 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; discussion 829-830.
4. Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J, et al. Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2000; 9:134-142.
5. Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31:156-162.
6. Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma 2006; 15:364-370. ORA corneal-compensated intraocular pressure measurements are less influenced by corneal thickness than Goldmann pressure measurements. This study was conducted in nonglaucoma patients.
7. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Fernandez-Vidal A, et al. Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47:4410-4414. ORA overestimates intraocular pressure compared with Goldmann tonometry. ORA readings seem to be affected by corneal thickness. This study was performed in glaucoma patients.
8. Kotecha A, Elsheikh A, Roberts CR, et al. Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47:5337-5347. This study defines a new corneal measurement from the ORA called the corneal constant factor. This factor explains more of the interindividual variation in Goldmann intraocular pressure than does corneal thickness alone. ORA pressure measurements normalized for this new factor are not associated with corneal thickness.
9. Kanngiesser HE, Kniestedt C, Robert YC. Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer. J Glaucoma 2005; 14:344-350.
10. Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Dynamic contour tonometry: a comparative study on human cadaver eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 2004; 122:1287-1293.
11. 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.
12. 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. Both rebound tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry pressure readings show excellent correlation with Goldmann tonometry. Both tonometers overestimate intraocular pressure compared with Goldmann tonometry.
13. Pepose JS, Feigenbaum SK, Qazi MA, et al. Changes in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic, and noncontact tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 143:39-47. Dynamic contour tonometry pressure readings are relatively unchanged after LASIK, in comparison with Goldmann tonometry and measures obtained with ORA. There was no statistical change in the ocular pulse amplitude after LASIK.
14. Francis BA, Hsieh A, Lai MY, et al. Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Ophthalmology 2007; 114:20-26. With 2157 participants, this is the largest study to look at dynamic contour tonometry in comparison with Goldmann tonometry. Dynamic contour tonometry was less affected by corneal thickness but was affected by corneal curvature. This effect was lower than the effect of corneal thickness on Goldmann tonometry, however.
15. Punjabi OS, Ho HK, Kniestedt C, et al. Intraocular pressure and ocular pulse amplitude comparisons in different types of glaucoma using dynamic contour tonometry. Curr Eye Res 2006; 31:851-862. Dynamic contour tonometry may measure an intraocular pressure that is independent of corneal thickness.
16. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in African American subjects. Ophthalmology 2007; 114:658-665. Dynamic contour tonometry measurements in African-Americans seem to be less dependent on corneal properties than Goldmann tonometry.
17. Barleon L, Hoffmann EM, Berres M, et al. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients and healthy subjects. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 142:583-590. Dynamic contour tonometry measurements correlated strongly with Goldmann tonometry in both glaucomatous and healthy eyes.
18. von Schulthess SR, Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, et al. Ocular pulse amplitude after trabeculectomy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2006; 244:46-51.
19. Weizer JS, Asrani S, Stinnett SS, Herndon LW. The clinical utility of dynamic contour tonometry and ocular pulse amplitude. J Glaucoma (in press).
20. Cervino A. Rebound tonometry: new opportunities and limitations of noninvasive determination of intraocular pressure. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90:1444-1446.
21. Kontiola A. A new electromechanical method for measuring intraocular pressure. Doc Ophthalmol 1996; 93:265-276.
22. Herndon LW. Measuring intraocular pressure-adjustments for corneal thickness and new technologies. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2006; 17:115-119.
23. Abraham LM, Epasinghe NC, Selva D, Casson R. Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer by experienced and inexperienced tonometrists. Eye 2007; 8 December. ICare rebound tonometry compares reasonably to Goldmann tonometry in both experienced and inexperienced hands.
24. Sahin A, Basmak H, Niyaz L, Yildirim N. Reproducibility and tolerability of the ICare rebound tonometer in school children. JGlaucoma 2007; 16:185-188. Schoolchildren are able to tolerate well intraocular pressure measurements with the iCare tonometer. Pressure measurements in this population were also highly reproducible.
25. Chui WS, Lam A, Chen D, Chiu R. The influence of corneal properties on rebound tonometry. Ophthalmology 2007; [Epub ahead of print].
26. Moreno-Montanes J, Garcia N, Fernandez-Hortelano A, Garcia-Layana A. Rebound tonometer compared with Goldmann tonometer in normal and pathologic corneas. Cornea 2007; 26:427-430. Rebound tonometry measurements were similar to Goldmann measures in pathologic corneas. In some corneas, rebound tonometry was able to obtain a pressure measurement whereas Goldmann tonometry was not.
27. Sahin A, Niyaz L, Yildirim N. Comparison of the rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. Clin Expeiment Ophthalmol 2007; 35:335-339. In glaucoma patients, rebound tonometry pressure measurements seem to be more affected by corneal thickness than Goldmann measurements.
28. Nakamura M, Darhad U, Tatsumi Y, et al. Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of applanation tonometers. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 142:332-334. The ICare tonometer is influenced by corneal thickness and agrees well with applanation tonometers.
29. Iliev ME, Goldblum D, Katsoulis K, et al. Comparison of rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry and correlation with central corneal thickness. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90:833-835.
30. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Castillo A, Garcia-Sanchez J. Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:4578-4580.
31. Fresco BB. A new tonometer: the pressure phosphene tonometer: clinical comparison with Goldman tonometry. Ophthalmology 1998; 105:2123-2126.
32. Rai S, Moster MR, Kesen M, et al. Level of disagreement between Proview phosphene tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer intraocular pressure readings. J Glaucoma 2005; 14:120-123.
33. Alvarez TL, Gollance SA, Thomas GA, et al. The Proview phosphene tonometer fails to measure ocular pressure accurately in clinical practice. Ophthalmology 2004; 111:1077-1085.
34. Li J, Herndon LW, Asrani SG, et al. Clinical comparison of the Proview eye pressure monitor with the Goldmann applanation tonometer and the Tonopen. Arch Ophthalmol 2004; 122:1117-1121.
35. Gunvant P, Lievens CW, Newman JM 3rd, et al. Evaluation of some factors affecting the agreement between the Proview Eye Pressure Monitor and the Goldmann applanation tonometer measurements. Clin Exp Optom 2007; 90:290-295. Overall agreement between Goldmann tonometry and the Proview phosphene tonometer was poor. Additional training did not influence Proview tonometer measurements.
36. Chung I, Bartolone A, Swanson WH, Thau AP. A clinical evaluation of Proview pressure phosphene tonometry in children. Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83:817-822.
37. Herse P, Hans A, Hall J, et al. The Proview Eye Pressure Monitor: influence of clinical factors on accuracy and agreement with the Goldmann tonometer. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2005; 25:416-420.