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
. 2019 Dec 18;12(12):1853-1858.
doi: 10.18240/ijo.2019.12.06. eCollection 2019.

Impact of corneal parameters on intraocular pressure measurements in different tonometry methods

Aleksandra Zakrzewska  1 , Marta P Wiącek  1 , Anna Machalińska  1
Affiliations

Impact of corneal parameters on intraocular pressure measurements in different tonometry methods

Aleksandra Zakrzewska et al. Int J Ophthalmol. .

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the impact of central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal curvature on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements performed by three different tonometers.

Methods: IOP in 132 healthy eyes of 66 participants was measured using three different tonometry techniques: Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and ICare rebound tonometer (RT). CCT and corneal curvature were assessed.

Results: In healthy eyes, DCT presents significantly higher values of IOP than GAT (17.34±3.69 and 15.27±4.06 mm Hg, P<0.0001). RT measurements are significantly lower than GAT (13.56±4.33 mm Hg, P<0.0001). Compared with GAT, DCT presented on average 2.51 mm Hg higher values in eyes with CCT<600 µm and 0.99 mm Hg higher results in eyes with CCT≥600 µm. The RT results were lower on average by 1.61 and 1.95 mm Hg than those obtained by GAT, respectively. Positive correlations between CCT in eyes with CCT<600 µm were detected for all IOP measurement techniques, whereas a similar relationship was not observed in eyes with thicker corneas. A correlation between IOP values and keratometry in the group with CCT<600 µm was not detected with any of the tonometry methods. In thicker corneas, a positive correlation was found for GAT and mean keratometry values (R=0.369, P=0.005).

Conclusion: The same method should always be chosen for routine IOP control, and measurements obtained by different methods cannot be compared. All analysed tonometry methods are dependent on CCT; thus, CCT should be taken into consideration for both diagnostics and monitoring.

Keywords: Goldmann applanation tonometer; ICare rebound tonometer; Pascal dynamic contour tonometer; central corneal thickness; corneal curvature; healthy individuals; intraocular pressure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Agreement between the Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) method and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in eyes with CCT<600 µm (A) and CCT≥600 µm (B).
Figure 2
Figure 2. Agreement between the Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) method and rebound tonometry (RT) in eyes with CCT<600 µm (A) and CCT≥600 µm (B).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kida T, Liu JH, Weinreb RN. Effects of aging on corneal biomechanical properties and their impact on 24-hour measurement of intraocular pressure. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;146(4):567–572. - PMC - PubMed
    1. ElMallah MK, Asrani SG. New ways to measure intraocular pressure. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008;19(2):122–126. - PubMed
    1. Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Miani F, Tosoni C, Parisi L, Brusini P. Comparison of iCare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry in normal corneas and in eyes with automated lamellar and penetrating keratoplasty. Eye (Lond) 2011;25(5):642–650. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Demirci G, Erdur SK, Tanriverdi C, Gulkilik G, Ozsutçu M. Comparison of rebound tonometry and non-contact airpuff tonometry to Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ther Adv Ophthalmol. 2019;11:2515841419835731. - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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(5):364–370. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources