Corneal parameters and difference between goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in normal eyes

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 460-464

  Lanza, Michele ^a   Borrelli, Maria ^a   De Bernardo, Maddalena ^a   Filosa, Maria Luisa ^a   Rosa, Nicola ^a  

^a SECOND UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES   (Italy)

Author keywords

Dynamic contour tonometry; Goldmann applanation tonometry; Intraocular pressure; Oculus Pentacam

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CAMERA; CLINICAL TRIAL; CORNEA; CORNEA THICKNESS; DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; GLAUCOMA; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; NORMAL HUMAN; PARAMETER; PRESSURE MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIUS; SLIT LAMP; TONOMETRY; AGING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HISTOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OCULOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY; PHOTOGRAPHY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGING; CORNEA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MIDDLE AGED; PHOTOGRAPHY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TONOMETRY, OCULAR;

EID: 58149109323     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31816224bd     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Whitacre MC, Stein R. Sources of error of Goldmann type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol. 1993;38:1-30.
2. Shields MB. Textbook of Glaucoma. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins; 1992:53-58.
3. Gloster J, Perkins ES. The validity of the Imbert-Fick law as applied to applanation tonomery. Exp Eye Res. 1963;44:274-283.
4. Markiewitz HH. The so called Imbert-Fick law. Arch Ophthalmol. 1960;64:159.
5. Kanngiesser HE, Kniestedt C, Robert YC. Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2005;14: 344-350.
6. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3790-3794.
7. 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.
8. Pache M, Wilmsmeyer S, Lautebach S, et al. Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243:763-767.
9. Kamppeter BA, Jonas JB. Dynamic contour tonometry for intraocular pressure measurement. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140: 318-320.
10. Kotecha 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.
11. Schneider E, Grehn F. Intraocular pressure measurement - comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:2-6.
12. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:3118-3121.
13. Siganos DS, Papastergiou GI, Moedas C. Assessment of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer in monitoring intraocular pressure in unoperated eyes and eyes after LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:746-751.
14. Doyle A, Lachkar Y. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldman applanation tonometry over a wide range of central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:288-292.
15. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1: 307-310.
16. Goldmann H, Schmidt T. Ueber applanationstometrie. Ophthalmologica. 1957;134:221-242.
17. Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Dynamic contour tonometry, a comparative study on human cadaver eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007; 122:1287-1293.