Comparison of Goldmann and Pascal tonometry in relation to corneal hysteresis and central corneal thickness in nonglaucomatous eyes

Clinical Ophthalmology

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 1071-1077

  Mangouritsas, G ^a   Mourtzoukos, S ^a   Mantzounis, A ^a   Alexopoulos, L ^a  

^a RED CROSS HOSPITAL   (Greece)

Author keywords

Central corneal thickness; Corneal hysteresis; Glaucoma; Goldmann applanation tonometry; Pascal dynamic contour tonometry

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORNEA THICKNESS; CORNEAL HYSTERESIS; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYSTERESIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; TONOMETRY; ULTRASOUND;

EID: 79961214245     PISSN: 11775467     EISSN: 11775483     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S23086     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Kass MA, Heur DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The ocular hypertension treatment study: a randomised trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary openangle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;1209(6):701-713.
2. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trail Group. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(1):48-56.
3. Goldmann H, Schmidt T. Applanation tonometry. Ophthalmologica. 1957;134(4):221-242.
4. Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S. Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1975;53(1):34-43.
5. Wessels IF, Oh Y. Tonometer utilization, accuracy, and calibration under field conditions. Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108(12):1709-1712.
6. Whitacre MM, Stein R. Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol. 1993;38(1):1-30.
7. Whitacre MM, Stein RA, Hassanein K. The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;115(5):592-596.
8. Bron AM, Creuzot-Garcher C, Goudeau-Boutillon S, d'Athis P. Falsely elevated intraocular pressure due to increased central corneal thickness. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1999;237(3):220-224.
9. Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and a meta-analysis approch. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;44(5):367-408.
10. Brandt JD, Beiser JA, Kass MA, Gordon MO. Central corneal thickness in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS). Ophthalmology. 2001;108(10):1779-1788.
11. Damji KF, Muni RH, Munger RM. Influence of corneal variables on accuracy of intraocular pressure measurement. J Glaucoma. 2003; 12(1):69-80.
12. Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure messurments: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(1):146-155.
13. Broman AT, Congdon NG, Bandeen-Roche K, Quigley HA. Influence of corneal structure, corneal responsiveness, and other ocular parameters on tonometric measurement of intraocular pressure. J Glaucoma. 2007;16(7):581-588.
14. Kumar N, Jivan S. Goldmann applanation tonometer calibration error checks: current practice in the UK. Eye (Lond). 2007;21(6):733-734.
15. Herndon LW. Measuring intraocular pressure-adjustments for corneal thickness and new technologies. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17(2):115-119.
16. Kanngiesser HE, Kniestedt C, Robert YC. Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2005;14(5):344-350.
17. Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with ocular analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(1): 156-162.
18. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldmann applanation tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45(9):3118-3121.
19. Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J, Bostrom A, Nee M, Stamper RL. Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relationship to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(11):1532-1537.
20. Ku JY, Danesh-Meyer HV, Craig JP, Gamble GD, McGhee CN. Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Eye (Lond). 2006;20(2):191-198.
21. Vico E, et al. Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and goldmann tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(12):2156-2162.
22. Schneider E, Grehn F. Intraocular pressure measurement-comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2006;15(1):2-6.
23. Francis BA, Hsieh A, Lai MY, et al. Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(1):20-26.
24. Lanza M, Borrelli M, De Bernardo M, Filosa ML, Rosa N. Corneal parameters and difference between goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in normal eyes. J Glaucoma. 2008; 17(6):460-464.
25. Ceruti P, Morbio R, Marraffa M, Marchini G. Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in healthy and glaucomatous eyes. Eye (Lond). 2009;23(2):262-269.
26. Lee J, Lee CH, Choi J, Yoon SY, Sung KR, et al. Comparison between dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2009;23(1):27-31.
27. Kotecha A, White ET, Shewry JM, Garway-Heath DF. The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005; 89(12):1572-1575.
28. 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(4):288-292.
29. Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Brusini P. Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the TonoPen, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85(3):272-279.
30. Halkiadakis I, Patsea E, Chatzimichali K, et al. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma practice. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009;87(3):323-328.
31. Realini T, Weinreb RN, Hobbs G. Correlation of intraocular pressure measured with goldmann and dynamic contour tonometry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma. 2009;18(2):119-123.
32. Hager A, Loge K, Schroeder B, Füllhas MO, Wiegand W. Effect of central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis on tonometry as measured by dynamic contour tonometry, ocular response analyzer, and Goldmann tonometry in glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma. 2008;17(5): 361-365.
33. Pache M, Wilmsmeyer S, Lautebach S, Funk J. Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243(8):763-767.
34. Barleon L, Hoffmann EM, Berres M, Pfeiffer N, Grus FH. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients and healthy subjects. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142(4):583-590.
35. Dupps WJ Jr, Wilson SE. Biomechanics and wound healing in the cornea. Exp Eye Res. 2006;83(4):709-720.
36. Hjortdal JO, Jensen PK. In vitro measurement of corneal strain, thickness, and curvature using digital image processing. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1995;73(1):5-11.
37. Boote C, Dennis S, Huang Y, Quantock AJ, Meek KM. Lamellar orientation in human cornea in relation to mechanical properties. J Struct Biol. 2005;149(1):1-6.
38. Daxer A, Misof K, Grabner B, Ettl A, Fratzl P. Collagen fibrils in the human corneal stroma: structure and aging. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39(3):644-648.
39. Kotecha A, White E, Schlottmann PG, Garway-Heath DF. Intraocular pressure measurement precision with the Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometers. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(4):730-737.
40. 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(5):364-370.
41. Mangouritsas G, Morphis G, Mourtzoukos S, Feretis E. Association between corneal hysteresis and central corneal thickness in glaucomatous and non-glaucomatous eyes. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009;87(8):901-905.
42. Burgoyne CF, Downs JC, Bellezza AJ, Suh JK, Hart RT. The optic nerve head as a biomechanical structure: a new paradigm for understanding the role of IOP-related stress and strain in the pathophysiology of glaucomatous optic nerve head damage. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2005; 24(1):39-73.
43. Sigal IA, Flanagan JG, Ethier CR. Factors influencing optic nerve head biomechanics. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(11):4189-4199.
44. 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(4):359-366.
45. Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL. Dynamic contour tonometry: a comparative study on human cadaver eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(9): 1287-1293.
46. La Rosa FA, Gross RL, Orengo-Nania S. Central corneal thickness of Caucasians and African Americans in glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous populations. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(1):23-27.
47. Hahn S, Azen S, Ying-Lai M, Varma R. Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Central corneal thickness in Latinos. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(4):1508-1512.
48. Shimmyo M, Ross AJ, Moy A, Mostafavi R. Intraocular pressure, Goldmann applanation tension, corneal thickness and corneal curvature in Caucasians, Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136(4):603-613.
49. Pepose JS, Feigenbaum SK, Qazi MA, Sanderson JP, Roberts CJ. Changes in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic, and noncontact tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(1):39-47.
50. 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(4):746-751.
51. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(9):3790-3794.
52. Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Cunliffe I, Mantry S. The use of the Reichert ocular response analyser to establish the relationship between ocular hysteresis, corneal resistance factor and central corneal thickness in normal eyes. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2006;29(5):257-262.
53. Feltgen N, Leifert D, Funk J. Correlation between central corneal thickness, applanation tonometry, and direct intracameral IOP readings. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85(1):85-87.
54. Gunvant P, Newcomb RD, Kirstein EM, Malinovsky VE, Madonna RJ, Meetz RE. Measuring accurate IOPs: does correction factor help or hurt? Clin Ophthalmol. 2010;21(4):611-616.
55. Ang GS, Nicholas S, Wells AP. Poor utility of intraocular pressure correction formulae in individual glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2010;39(2):111-118.
56. Yoo C, Eom YS, Kim YY. Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in eyes with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP): comparison in the same eyes after subsequent medical normalization of IOP. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010;248(11):1611-1616.
57. Boehm AG, Weber A, Pillunat LE, Koch R, Spoerl E. Dynamic contour tonometry in comparison to intracameral IOP measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(6):2472-2477.
58. Sullivan-Mee M, Gerhardt G, Halverson KD, Qualls C. Repeatability and reproducibility for intraocular pressure measurement by dynamic contour, ocular response analyzer, and goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2009;18(9):666-673.