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

Yoo, Chungkwon; Eom, Youngsub; Kim, Yong Yeon

doi:10.1007/s00417-010-1462-2

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further research in a large population is needed to determine the DCT IOP distribution curve with the corresponding statistical limits, as a benchmark for the clinical evaluation of DCT measurements independently of GAT. In addition it should be clarified, why the IOP differences between the two methods tend to diminish with increasing IOP 22,56. This tendency was also derived from the Bland–Altman plot of our data, but was not significant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 48%

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

Mangouritsas¹,

Mourtzoukos²,

Mantzounis³

et al. 2011

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To compare measurements obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and Pascal dynamic contour tonometry (DCT), and to study their relationship to corneal thickness and biomechanical properties in nonglaucomatous eyes.Methods:This is a prospective and randomized study of 200 eyes from 200 non-glaucomatous subjects who underwent intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements by GAT and DCT. The two methods were compared and assessed for agreement by means of the Bland–Altman plot. Central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal hysteresis (CH) were obtained by ultrasound pachymeter and Ocular Response Analyzer, respectively. The effect of CH and CCT was correlated with the DCT/GAT IOP differences.Results:Mean age was 57.4 ± 14.7 years (range 24–82 years). Mean IOP measurements obtained were 16.7 ± 3.2 mmHg by GAT and 19.4 ± 3.3 mmHg by DCT. DCT showed a statistically significant higher mean IOP (2.7 ± 1.9 mmHg, P < 0.001) compared with GAT. Mean CCT and CH were 546.5 ± 40 μm and 10.85 ± 2.0 mmHg, respectively. The differences in IOP (DCT – GAT) were significantly correlated with CCT and CH (Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = −0.517 and −0.355, P < 0.0001, respectively). The difference between the two correlation coefficients was statistically significant (P < 0.05, Z-statistic). According to the Bland–Altman plot, the results of the two methods were clinically different.Conclusion:Significantly higher IOP readings were obtained by DCT than by GAT in nonglaucomatous subjects. The IOP differences between the two methods were associated with CCT and CH, suggesting that DCT was less dependent on corneal parameters. Each method provides clinically different IOP values, indicating that DCT and GAT should not be used interchangeably.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 48%

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

Mangouritsas¹,

Mourtzoukos²,

Mantzounis³

et al. 2011

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to studies using human cadaver eyes, IOP values measured by DCT were significantly closer to the manometric reference pressure than the GAT measurements 17 . Previous studies have demonstrated an excellent agreement between GAT and DCT, although DCT readings tended to be generally higher in healthy eyes and glaucomatous eyes 4, 9, 10, 18. Conversely to RT, there are many studies investigating DCT measurements in keratoconic corneas.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…DCT did not significantly correlate with CCT in our study. DCT has been proposed to measure IOP irrespective of the corneal thickness because DCT does not flatten the cornea, which allows the cornea to maintain its shape provoking minimal distortion during the measurement 4, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in keratoconus

Özçura

Yıldırım

Tambova

et al. 2017

Journal of Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the rebound tonometry (RT), dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in keratoconic corneas and to investigate the effects of central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal radius of curvature (CR) on IOP measurements.MethodsSixty-three eyes of 63 keratoconus patients were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. IOP was measured on each subject always in the same order, ICare RT-Pascal DCT-GAT, after a minimum interval of 10 min between measurements. CCT and CR were measured using a rotating Scheimpflug camera before the IOP measurements in all subjects. One way repeated measures ANOVA and Pearson correlation coefficient analysis was used for the statistical assessment.ResultsMean IOP for all enrolled eyes was 11.72 ± 2.59 mm Hg for GAT, 9.34 ± 3.29 mm Hg for RT, and 15.42 ± 3.31 mm Hg for DCT. There were statistically significant differences among the three tonometers; GAT and RT (P < 0.001), GAT and DCT (P < 0.001), and RT and DCT (P < 0.001). GAT and RT were significantly positively correlated with CCT (r = 0.288, P = 0.025 and r = 0.483, P < 0.001, respectively). RT was also significantly positively correlated with CR (r = 0.550, P < 0.001). DCT was not significantly correlated with CCT (r = 0.115, P = 0.377) nor CR (r = −0.179, P = 0.168).ConclusionsDCT has overestimated but RT has underestimated IOP readings according to GAT measurements in keratoconic corneas. DCT may be the most appropriate tonometer to use in keratoconus for the measurements of IOP, because DCT do not appear to be dependent upon CCT and CR.

show abstract

“…GAT 38,7 ± 9,1 mmHg, p < 0,001) aufwies. Nach drucksenkender Therapie zeigten sich allerdings höhere Werte für die DCT im Vergleich zur GAT (DCT: 17,9 ± 3,1 mmHg vs. GAT 15,6 ± 2,7 mmHg, p < 0,001) [18]. Schwenteck et al konnten in einer Normalpopulation zeigen, dass die DCT die Kriterien des ISO-8612-Standards nicht erfüllte.…”

Section: Diskussion !unclassified

Vergleich der dynamischen Konturtonometrie vs. Goldmann-Applanationstonometrie nach dem internationalen Standard für Augentonometer (ISO 8612) in einem Glaukomkollektiv

Pahlitzsch

Gonnermann

Maier

et al. 2014

Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Abstract: DCT-IOP, which is higher than GAT-IOP in normotensive eyes, is lower in eyes with GAT-IOP exceeding 30 mmHg.

Cited by 9 publications

References 37 publications

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

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

Evaluation of Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in keratoconus

Vergleich der dynamischen Konturtonometrie vs. Goldmann-Applanationstonometrie nach dem internationalen Standard für Augentonometer (ISO 8612) in einem Glaukomkollektiv

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About