Comparison of Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Non-contact Tonometry in Older Patients Presenting with Headache or Vision Loss
- PMID: 30008972
- PMCID: PMC6018127
- DOI: 10.2174/1874364101812010104
Comparison of Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Non-contact Tonometry in Older Patients Presenting with Headache or Vision Loss
Abstract
Background: Dynamic Contour Tonometry (DCT) is touted to be the most accurate tonometer for Intraocular Pressure (IOP) measurement. Non-Contact "air puff" Tonometry (NCT) may be the most commonly used tonometer for screening of IOP. Elevated IOP is important to exclude in patients presenting with headache or vision loss.
Objective: To determine the agreement between DCT and NCT.
Methods: The IOP of adult patients 50 years of age or older presenting with headache or vision loss for possible temporal artery biopsy were prospectively recorded. NCT and DCT measurements were obtained within thirty minutes. The right eye IOP measurements were compared with paired t-test, and Bland- Altman plot analysis. The left eye IOP measurements were subsequently analyzed for confirmation of results.
Results: There were 106 subjects with complete right eye data, and 104 subjects with complete left eye data. The average age was 72 years, and 70% were female. The NCT IOP was on average 3.9 mm Hg lower in the right eye, and 3.5 mm Hg lower in the left eye compared with DCT. (p<.001) In the right eye the Bland-Altman analysis showed the 95% agreement interval between the two tonometers was -2.5 to 10.4 mmHg and in the left eye -3.0 to 9.9 mmHg.
Conclusion: The IOP from NCT and DCT should not be used interchangeably because their level of disagreement includes clinically important discrepancies of up to 10 mm Hg.
Keywords: Agreement; Bland-Altman plot; Dynamic contour tonometry; Giant cell arteritis; Headache; Intraocular pressure; Non-contact tonometry.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of current tonometry techniques in measurement of intraocular pressure.J Curr Ophthalmol. 2016 Nov 28;29(2):92-97. doi: 10.1016/j.joco.2016.08.010. eCollection 2017 Jun. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2016. PMID: 28626817 Free PMC article.
-
Effects of Acute Atmospheric Pressure Changes on Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry in Normal Individuals: A Pilot Study.J Glaucoma. 2020 Sep;29(9):756-760. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001592. J Glaucoma. 2020. PMID: 32618804
-
Comparison of intraocular pressures after myopic laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy: tonometry-pachymetry, Goldmann applanation tonometry, dynamic contour tonometry, and noncontact tonometry.J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Jun;39(6):888-97. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.01.035. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013. PMID: 23688875
-
Can higher end tonometers be used interchangeably in routine clinical practice?Indian J Ophthalmol. 2016 Feb;64(2):132-5. doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.179723. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2016. PMID: 27050348 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in normal and glaucomatous eyes.Int J Ophthalmol. 2015 Apr 18;8(2):299-304. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.02.15. eCollection 2015. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015. PMID: 25938044 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Eisenberg D. Reconsidering the gold standard of tonometry. Glaucoma Today. Early Spring; 2011.
-
- Eisenberg D. Accurate tonmetry: Is help on the way? Not today. Glaucoma Today. 2015.
-
- Bochmann F., Kaufmann C., Thiel M.A. Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: Challenging the gold standard. Expert Rev. Ophthalmol. 2010;5(6):743. doi: 10.1586/eop.10.68. - DOI
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources