Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements between Easyton transpalpebral tonometry and Perkins, iCare iC100 and Corvis ST, and the influence of corneal and anterior scleral thickness
- PMID: 37632576
- DOI: 10.1007/s10792-023-02814-y
Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements between Easyton transpalpebral tonometry and Perkins, iCare iC100 and Corvis ST, and the influence of corneal and anterior scleral thickness
Abstract
Purpose: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements between Easyton transpalpebral tonometry and Perkins, iCare iC100 and Corvis ST. Also, to assess the influence of corneal characteristics and anterior scleral thickness (AST) on the IOP measurements.
Methods: Sixty-nine eyes from 69 healthy subjects were included. IOP was measured by Easyton, Perkins, iC100 and Corvis ST (corrected IOP, bIOP; and non-corrected IOP, IOPnct). Other variables studied were AST, axial length (AL), and Corvis parameters: Length 1, velocity 1, length 2, velocity 2, peak distance, radius, deformation amplitude, and central corneal thickness (CCT). Pearson correlation, limits of agreement (LoA), and multiple regression analysis were calculated.
Results: No significant differences in IOP between Easyton and Perkins, iC100, and bIOP were observed (all p > 0.05), being significant only between Perkins and IOPnct ( - 1.49 mmHg, p < 0.001). Bland-Altman graphs showed that the mean difference between Perkins and Easyton was 0.07 mmHg (p < 0.001), and LoA - 7.49 to + 7.39 mmHg. Significant correlations were found between the measurements of Perkins and iC100, IOPnct, bIOP (r = 0.710, 0.628, 0.539; p < 0.001 respectively), iC100 and IOPnct, bIOP (r = 0.627, 0.513; p < 0.001, respectively). The multivariate regression analysis revealed that differences between Perkins and Easyton (adjusted R2 = 0.25) were influenced by AL (B = 1.28, p < 0.008), length 1 (B = 3.13, p < 0.018), and the radius (B = 1.26, p < 0.010). Differences between Perkins and bIOP (adjusted R2 = 0.21) were affected by the CCT (B = 0.029, p < 0.003).
Conclusions: There are no significant differences in the IOP measurements between Perkins and Easyton, iC100 or bIOP. Length 1, radius, and CCT have limited influence on these differences, while AST did not show any effect.
Keywords: Applanation tonometry; Corneal biomechanics; Corvis ST; Easyton transpalpebral tonometry; Rebound tonometry.
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
References
-
- Krieglstein GK, Waller WK (1975) Goldmann applanation versus hand-applanation and Schiötz indentation tonometry. Albrecht von Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 194:11–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00408271 - DOI
-
- Baskett JS, Goen TM, Terry JE (1986) A comparison of Perkins and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Am Optom Assoc 57:832–834 - PubMed
-
- Zhang Y, Bian A, Hang Q et al (2023) Corneal biomechanical properties of various types of glaucoma and their impact on measurement of intraocular pressure. Ophthalmic Res. https://doi.org/10.1159/000530291 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Brown L, Foulsham W, Pronin S, Tatham AJ (2018) The influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using a rebound self-tonometer. J Glaucoma 27:511–518. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000948 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Tranchina L, Lombardo M, Oddone F et al (2013) Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure differences between an air-puff tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer. J Glaucoma 22:416–421. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e31824cafc9 - DOI - PubMed