Rebound tonometry versus Goldmann tonometry in school children: feasibility and agreement of intraocular pressure measurements

Esporcatte, Bruno L. B.; Lopes, Flavio S.; Netto, Camila; Rebouças-Santos, Vespasiano; Dias, Diego Torres; Marujo, Fábio Iglesias; Rolim-de-Moura, Christiane

doi:10.5935/0004-2749.20150095

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even the studies that demonstrate good agreement between rebound tonometry, GAT and Tonopen note that greater variability exists at higher IOP and with variations in CCT [15][16]21] . Several studies have demonstrated a clear correlation between CCT and alterations in IOP readings with all forms of tonometry [24][25][26][27][28][29] . Tonnu et al [27] compared the effect of CCT on multiple methods of tonometry and noted that all methods of tonometry are significantly affected by CCT, however the effect is least with GAT.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of intraocular pressure readings with Perkins, Tonopen, iCare 200, and iCare Home to manometry in cadaveric eyes

Ertel¹,

Patnaik²,

Kahook³

2022

Int J Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) readings obtained with Perkins tonometry, iCare Home, iCare 200, and Tonopen to IOP readings obtained with the manometer of a perfusion system to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of each method of tonometry at set pressures. METHODS: The IOP of human cadaveric eyes (n=2) was measured using a manometer inserted into the eye through the optic nerve. IOP measurements were obtained using a Perkins tonometer, iCare Home, iCare 200, and Tonopen. These measurements were compared to set point IOP measurements of a manometer to determine accuracy and reproducibility of each device. RESULTS: Mean IOP readings obtained with the Perkins tonometer compared to manometer readings demonstrated a difference of -1.0±5.0 mm Hg (P=0.45), indicating a lower reading on average than manometery although not significant. Mean IOP difference between iCare 200 and manometer was 5.3±2.2 mm Hg (P<0.0001). Mean difference in IOP between iCare Home and manometer was 3.5±2.4 mm Hg (P=0.0004). Mean IOP difference compared to manometer was 4.6±4.0 mm Hg for the Tonopen (P<0.0001). IOP measurements obtained with the Perkins tonometer demonstrated a standard deviation of 5.0 mm Hg while the Tonopen measurements demonstrated a 4.0 mm Hg standard deviation. In comparison, iCare 200 and iCare Home demonstrated 2.2 and 2.4 mm Hg standard deviation, respectively. CONCLUSION: Applanation tonometry produces more accurate IOP readings than rebound tonometry or Tonopen, however it demonstrates greater variability than the other forms of tonometry. Rebound tonometry is more reproducible but tends to over-estimate IOP.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of intraocular pressure readings with Perkins, Tonopen, iCare 200, and iCare Home to manometry in cadaveric eyes

Ertel¹,

Patnaik²,

Kahook³

2022

Int J Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Posture-related fluctuations of intraocular pressure in healthy children with suspicion of glaucoma

Lüke,

Enders,

Händel

et al. 2023

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Currently, there are no specific data on the circadian course of intraocular pressure (IOP) in children, especially for IOP measurements in the supine position. The study aimed to characterize the diurnal and nocturnal IOP fluctuations in supine and sitting positions in patients less than 18 years of age. Methods Seventy-nine eyes of 79 patients under 18 years of age with suspicious optic nerve heads or ocular hypertension could be included in this study. All included patients showed an inconspicuous retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and Bruch’s membrane minimum rim width by coherence tomography. IOP measurements during the 24-h IOP profile were retrospectively evaluated. Measurements were taken at 10:00, 16:00, 20:00, and 23:00 h in the sitting position and at 6:00 h in the morning in the supine position using iCare rebound tonometry on 2 consecutive days. Results Thirty-four of 79 children (43.0%) had peak nocturnal IOP values > 25 mmHg. The mean daily IOP was 18.8 ± 5.6 mmHg, and the mean daily fluctuation was 6.1 ± 4.0 mmHg. At 6 am, supine measurements were elevated to 25.1 ± 8.0 mmHg. Extensive fluctuations with values > 40 mmHg in the nocturnal supine measurement occurred in a relevant share of patients (n = 5). Conclusion There appear to be relevant diurnal and nocturnal IOP fluctuations in healthy children (< 18 years). Nocturnal IOP measurements in supine patients with risk factors for glaucoma may provide important additional information to identify critical patients for further follow-up.

show abstract

Rebound tonometry with re-sterilised tips versus Goldmann applanation tonometry in children

Paredes

Asturias

Pérez

2020

Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología (English Editi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rebound tonometry versus Goldmann tonometry in school children: feasibility and agreement of intraocular pressure measurements

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Comparison of intraocular pressure readings with Perkins, Tonopen, iCare 200, and iCare Home to manometry in cadaveric eyes

Comparison of intraocular pressure readings with Perkins, Tonopen, iCare 200, and iCare Home to manometry in cadaveric eyes

Posture-related fluctuations of intraocular pressure in healthy children with suspicion of glaucoma

Rebound tonometry with re-sterilised tips versus Goldmann applanation tonometry in children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About