Factors influencing intermethod agreement between goldmann applanation, pascal dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometry

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 487-495

  Sullivan Mee, Michael ^a   Lewis, Sarah E ^a   Pensyl, Denise ^a   Gerhardt, Gretchen ^a   Halverson, Kathy D ^a   Qualls, Clifford ^a,b  

^a VA Medical Center   (United States)

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

Author keywords

Applanation tonometry; Central corneal thickness; Corneal biomechanics; Corneal hysteresis; Corneal resistance factor; Diabetes mellitus; Dynamic contour tonometry; Glaucoma; Intraocular pressure; Ocular Response Analyzer

Indexed keywords

ANTIGLAUCOMA AGENT; PROSTAGLANDIN DERIVATIVE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CORNEA CURVATURE; CORNEA THICKNESS; CORNEAL HYSTERESIS; DIABETES MELLITUS; EYE AXIS LENGTH; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; GOLDMANN APPLANATION TONOMETER; HUMAN; IMPAIRED GLUCOSE TOLERANCE; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; LOW TENSION GLAUCOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; OCULAR RESPONSE ANALYZER TONOMETER; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PASCAL DYNAMIC CONTOUR TONOMETER; PERIMETRY; PRESSURE MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINAL NERVE FIBER LAYER THICKNESS; TONOMETER; TONOMETRY; VISUAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS;

ADULT; AGED; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; EYE; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TIME FACTORS; TONOMETRY, OCULAR; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84881667084     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: 1536481X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31824cd08d     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: A randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:701-713
2. CNTGS authors. Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126:487-497
3. AGIS authors. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. The AGIS Investigators. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:429-440
4. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, et al. EMGT Group. Predictors of long-term progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1965-1972
5. Kotecha A, White E, Schlottmann PG, et al. Intraocular pressure measurement precision with the Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometers. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:730-737
6. Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: Quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:146-155
7. 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
8. 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
9. Broman AT, Congdon NG, Bandeen-Roche K, et al. Influence of corneal structure, corneal responsiveness, and other ocular parameters on tonometric measurement of intraocular pressure. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:581-588
10. Francis BA, Hsieh A, Lai M, 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
11. Hsu SY, Sheu MM, Hsu AH, et al. Comparisions of intraocular pressure measurements: Goldmann applanation tonometry, noncontact tonometry, Tono-Pen tonometry, and dynamic contour tonometry. Eye. 2009;23:1582-1588
12. Kanngiesser HE, Kniestedt C, Robert YC. Dynamic contour tonometry: Presentation of a new tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:344-350
13. Punjabi OS, Kniestedt C, Stamper RL, et al. Dynamic contour tonometry: Principle and use. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006; 34:837-840
14. Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:156-162
15. 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
16. Lam A, Chen D, Chiu R, et al. Comparison of IOP measurements between ORA and GAT in normal Chinese. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:909-914
17. 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
18. Kamppeter BA, Jonas JB. Dynamic contour tonometry for intraocular pressure measurement. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005; 140:318-320
19. Schneider E, Grehn F. Intraocular pressure measurementcomparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:2-6
20. Boehm AG, Weber A, Pillunat LE, et al. Dynamic contour tonometry in comparison to intracameral IOP measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:2472-2477
21. 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
22. Sullivan-Mee M, Billingsley SC, Patel AD, et al. Ocular Response Analyzers in subjects with and without glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:463-470
23. Kirwan C, O'Keefe M, Lanigan B. Corneal hysteresis and intraocular pressure measurement in children using the Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142: 990-992
24. Sullivan-Mee M, Halverson KD, Qualls C. Clinical comparison of Pascals dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in asymmetric open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:694-699
25. Congdon NG, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, et al. Central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis associated with glaucoma damage. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141:868-875
26. Bochmann F, Ang GS, Azuara-Blanco A. Lower corneal hysteresis in glaucoma patients with acquired pit of the optic nerve (APON). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008; 246:735-738
27. Anand A, DeMoraes CG, Teng CC, et al. Corneal hysteresis and visual field asymmetry in open-angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:6514-6518
28. Touboul D, Roberts C, Kérautret J, et al. Correlations between corneal hysteresis, intraocular pressure, and corneal central pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:616-622
29. Oncel B, Dinc U, Orge F, et al. Comparison of IOP measurement by ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour, Goldmann applanation, and noncontact tonometry. Euro J Ophthalmol. 2009;19:936-941
30. Morita T, Shoji N, Kamiya K, et al. Intraocular pressure measured by dynamic contour tonometer and ocular response analyzer in normal tension glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010;248:73-78
31. Vandewalle E, Vandenbroeck S, Stalmans I, et al. Comparison of ICare, dynamic contour tonometer, and ocular response analyzer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19:783-789
32. Hager A, Loge K, Schroeder B, et al. 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;17:361-365
33. Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Mantry S, et al. Ocular response analyzer to assess hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in low-tension, open-angle glaucoma, and ocular hypertension. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;36:508-513
34. 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;18:119-123
35. Wang J, Cayer MM, Descovich D, et al. Assessment of factors affecting the difference in intraocular pressure measurements between dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2011;20:482-487
36. Renier C, Zeyen T, Fieuws S, et al. Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer. Int Ophthalmol. 2010;30: 651-659
37. Lau W, Pye D. A clinical description of Ocular Response Analyzer measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52: 2911-2916
38. Sahin A, Bayer A, Ozge G, et al. Corneal biomechanical changes in diabetes mellitus and their influence on intraocular pressure measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50: 4597-4604
39. Goldich Y, Barkana Y, Gerber Y, et al. Effect of diabetes mellitus on biomechanical parameters of the cornea. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35:715-719
40. Hager A, Wegscheider K, Wiegand W. Changes of extracellular matrix of the cornea in diabetes mellitus. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;247:1369-1374
41. Lee JS, Oum BS, Choi HY, et al. Differences in corneal thickness and corneal endothelium related to duration in diabetes. Eye. 2006;20:315-318
42. Akinci A, Bulus D, Aycan Z, et al. Central corneal thickness in children with diabetes. J Refract Surg. 2009;25:1041-1044
43. Castro DP, Prata TS, Lima VC, et al. Corneal viscoelasticity differences between diabetic and nondiabetic glaucomatous patients. J Glaucoma. 2010;19:341-343
44. Kotecha A, Oddone F, Sinapis C, et al. Corneal biomechanical characteristics in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Cat Refr Surg. 2010;1822-1828
45. Schlote T, Tzamalis A, Kynigopoulos M. Central corneal thickness during treatment with travoprost 0.004% in glaucoma patients. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2009;25:459-462
46. Hatanaka M, Vessani RM, Elias IR, et al. The effect of prostaglandin analogs and prostamide on central corneal thickness. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2009;25:51-53
47. Sen E, Nalcacioglu P, Yazici A, et al. Comparison of the effects of latanoprost and bimatoprost on central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma. 2008;17:398-402
48. Harasymowycz PJ, Papamatheakis DG, Ennis M, et al. Relationship between travoprost and central corneal thickness in ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma. Cornea. 2007;26:34-41
49. Detorakis ET, Arvanitaki V, Pallikaris IG, et al. Applanation tonometry versus dynamic contour tonometry in eyes treated with latanaprost. J Glaucoma. 2010;19:194-198
50. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310
51. Paranhos A Jr, Paranhos FR, Prata JA Jr, et al. Influence of keratometric readings on comparative intraocular pressure measurements with Goldmann, Tonopen, and non-contact tonometers. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:317-321
52. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in African American subjects. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:658-665
53. Pallikaris IG, Kymionis GD, Ginis HS, et al. Ocular rigidity in living human eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:409-414
54. Asejczyk-Widlicka M, Pierscionek BK. The elasticity and rigidity of the outer coats of the eye. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008; 92:1415-1418
55. Dastiridou AI, Ginis HS, DeBrouwere D, et al. Ocular rigidity, ocular pulse amplitude, and pulsatile ocular blood flow: The effect of intraocular pressure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:5718-5722
56. McBrien NA, Jobling AI, Gentle A. Biomechanics of the sclera in myopiaExtracellular and cellular factors. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86:E23-E30
57. Hommer A, Fuchsjä ger-Mayrl G, Resch H, et al. Estimation of ocular rigidity based on measurement of pulse amplitude using pneumotonometry and fundus pulse using laser interferometry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49: 4046-4050
58. Ebneter A, Wagels B, ZinkernagelMS. Non-invasive biometric assessment of ocular rigidity in glaucoma patients and controls. Eye. 2009;23:606-611
59. Foster PJ, Broadway DC, Garway-Heath DF, et al. Intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanics in an adult British population: The EPIC Norfolk Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:8179-8185
60. Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Ohmoto F. Effect of aging on corneal biomechanical parameters using the ocular response analyzer. J Refract Surg. 2009;25:888-893
61. Elsheikh A, Wang D, Rama P, et al. Assessment of corneal biomechanical properties and their variation with age. Curr Eye Res. 2007;32:11-19