Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2015 Aug 28;10(8):e0133586.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133586. eCollection 2015.

Comparison of Rebound Tonometry, Perkins Applanation Tonometry and Ocular Response Analyser in Mucopolysaccharidosis Patients

Joanna Wasielica-Poslednik  1 , Christina Butsch  1 , Christina Lampe  2 , Heike Elflein  1 , Julia Lamparter  1 , Veronika Weyer  3 , Susanne Pitz  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of Rebound Tonometry, Perkins Applanation Tonometry and Ocular Response Analyser in Mucopolysaccharidosis Patients

Joanna Wasielica-Poslednik et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Aims: To investigate the feasibility and to compare three devices measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) in mucopolysaccharidosis patients (MPS): iCare rebound tonometer (RT), Perkins applanation tonometer (PAT) and ocular response analyzer (ORA).

Methods: MPS patients who underwent at least two examinations out of: RT, PAT and ORA at the same visit were identified and retrospectively analyzed in this study.

Results: 17 patients fulfilled the inclusion criterion. In all 17 patients IOP measurements were performed with RT (34 eyes) and ORA (33 eyes), while PAT measurement was possible in only 12 (24 eyes) patients. The RT, corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc) and Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (IOPg) differed relevantly from IOP assessed with PAT. Corneal clouding in MPS patients correlated positively with PAT, RT and IOPg (r = 0.3, 0.5, and 0.5 respectively), but not with IOPcc (r = 0.07). The MPS-related corneal clouding correlated positively with biomechanical corneal parameters assessed with ORA: corneal hysteresis (r = 0.77) and corneal resistance factor (r = 0.77) either.

Conclusions: RT and ORA measurements were tolerated better than applanation tonometry in MPS patients. IOP measurements assessed with RT and ORA differed relevantly from PAT. Corneal-compensated IOP assessed with ORA seems to be less affected by the MPS-related corneal clouding than applanation or rebound tonometry. RT and ORA measurements should be preferred for IOP assessment in patients with MPS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. X-axis: right and left eyes; Y-axis: median values and ranges of rebound tonometry (RT-IOP), Perkins applanation tonometry (PAT-IOP), Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (ORA-IOPg) and corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (ORA-IOPcc) in mmHg.
Fig 2
Fig 2. X-axis: eye 1 –right eye; eye 2 –left eye; Y-axis: median values and ranges of the differences between Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure and Perkins applanation tonometry (ΔIOPg-PAT); between corneal-compensated intraocular pressure and PAT (ΔIOPcc-PAT) and between rebound tonometry and PAT (ΔRT-PAT) in mmHg.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Bland-Altman plots show the agreement between rebound tonometry (RT-IOP), Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (ORA-IOPg), corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (ORA-IOPcc) and Perkins applanation tonometry (PAT-IOP) in right eyes.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Bland-Altman plots show the agreement between rebound tonometry (RT-IOP), Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (ORA-IOPg), corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (ORA-IOPcc) and Perkins applanation tonometry (PAT-IOP) in left eyes.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Regression graphs presenting Spearman´s correlation coefficient between Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (IOPg) and corneal clouding.
Fig 6
Fig 6. Regression graphs presenting Spearman´s correlation coefficient between rebound tonometry (RT) and corneal clouding.
Fig 7
Fig 7. Regression graphs presenting Spearman´s correlation coefficient between Perkins applanation tonometer (PAT) and corneal clouding.
Fig 8
Fig 8. Regression graphs presenting Spearman´s correlation coefficient between corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc) and corneal clouding.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Baehner F, Schmiedeskamp C, Krummenauer F, Miebach E, Bajbouj M et al. (2005) Cumulative incidence rates of the mucopolysaccharidoses in Germany. J Inherit Metab Dis 28(6):1011–7. - PubMed
    1. Coutinho MF, Lacerda L, Alves S (2012) Glycosaminoglycan storage disorders: a review. Biochem Res Int. 2012:471325 10.1155/2012/471325 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Summers CG, Ashworth JL (2011) Ocular manifestations as key features for diagnosing mucopolysaccharidoses. Rheumatology 50:30–40. - PubMed
    1. Ashworth J, Flaherty M, Pitz S, Ramlee A (2015) Assessment and diagnosis of suspected glaucoma in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis. Acta Ophthalmol. 93(2):e111–7. 10.1111/aos.12607 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ashworth JL, Biswas S, Wraith E, Lloyd IC (2006) The ocular features of the mucopolysaccharidoses. Eye 20(5):553–63. - PubMed

Publication types