Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “TONOMETRY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

[Impression and applanation tonometry in irregular corneas. Comparison with intraocular needle tonometry].

PURPOSE: During the past 4 years we have demonstrated in eyes with corneal pathology that applanation tonometry (Goldmann, Perkins) generally delivers falsely low measurements in comparison to intraocular needle tonometry. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether impression tonometry (Schioetz) is more precise than applanation tonometry in determining the intraocular pressure in eyes with corneal disorders. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 75 eyes with suspected glaucoma and various corneal disorders, we performed applanation tonometry and impression tonometry before intraocular needle tonometry. Applanation tonometry was repeated after impression tonometry to unveil a possible tonography effect. Intraocular needle tonometry was performed thereafter. RESULTS: Applanation tonometry results were 4.1 +/- 5.3 mmHg below intraocular pressure as determined by intraocular needle tonometry. Impression tonometry results were also lower: 4.3 +/- 6.8 mmHg (5.5 g), 4.3 +/- 6.4 mmHg (7.5 g), and 4.8 +/- 7.0 mmHg (10.0 g). The differences between applanation tonometry and impression tonometry were statistically not significant. In contrast, all the differences between extraocular tonometry procedures and intraocular needle tonometry were statistically highly significant (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In corneal pathology both, applanation tonometry and impression tonometry do not deliver reliable results on an average. Only intraocular needle-tonometry delivers reliable results in these eyes.

Corneal Diseases↗
PubMed2006

Intraocular pressure measurement-comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry.

PURPOSE: The dynamic contour tonometer (DCT, Pascal tonometer, Swiss Microtechnology AG, Port, Switzerland) was recently introduced as a new method of intraocular pressure measurement, supposedly independent of corneal properties. In this study we analyzed the agreement and correlation of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and investigated the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal curvature. We also considered preferential patient groups for both methods. METHODS: In a prospective study of 100 eyes without glaucoma, intraocular pressure was measured using dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry, followed by measurements of central corneal thickness and corneal curvature. RESULTS: A clear correlation between dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry was found (r = 0.693; P < 0.001). Dynamic contour tonometry generally resulted in higher intraocular pressure measurements (median difference + 1.8 mm Hg, mean difference + 2.34 mm Hg). Unlike dynamic contour tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry was remarkably affected by central corneal thickness, but neither method was significantly influenced by corneal curvature. Bland-Altman graphs showed remarkable disagreement between dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry, which could be partially explained by the influence of central corneal thickness on Goldmann applanation tonometry. To obtain valid readings, dynamic contour tonometry required a more extensive selection of patients than Goldmann applanation tonometry. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic contour tonometry seems to be a reliable method for intraocular pressure measurement, which unlike Goldmann applanation tonometry is not influenced by central corneal thickness. In clinical practice, advantages from dynamic contour tonometry can be expected for cooperative patients, outpatients, and patients with sufficient bilateral ocular fixation, whereas Goldmann applanation tonometry measurements are more reliable in case of patients with inadequate cooperation, poor vision, or nystagmus.

Body Weights and Measures↗
PubMed2006

[Intraocular pressure and corneal thickness. A comparison between non-contact tonometry and applanation tonometry].

OBJECTIVE: Corneal thickness and deformation seem to have a considerable influence on intraocular pressure measurement. Due to differences in the corneal deformation in either non-contact tonometry or applanation tonometry, both methods should be compared in the same patient group depending on central corneal thickness. METHODS: In 106 eyes of 55 patients (18 males, 37 females, age 17-89 years, mean 63.3 years) with glaucoma and central corneal thickness between 409 and 644 microm (Orbscan II pachymetry) intraocular pressure was measured in each eye with non-contact tonometry (Reichert AT550) and 30 min later with Goldman applanation tonometry. RESULT: Non-contact tonometry as well as applanation tonometry showed a positive correlation between measured intraocular pressure and corneal thickness. The steepness of the line of regression was 0.33 mmHg per 10 microm of corneal thickness in non-contact tonometry and 0.17 mmHg per 10 microm of corneal thickness in applanation tonometry. CONCLUSION: Independently of the large differences in individual pressure measurements between non-contact tonometry and applanation tonometry, we found higher IOP values with non-contact tonometry in thicker corneas as compared with applanation tonometry. In thinner corneas there was a better correspondence between both methods. Thus, it seems very likely that corneal rigidity increases with corneal thickness.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Transpalpebral tonometry: reliability and comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometry and palpation in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND/AIM: TGDc-01 is a new, portable, transpalpebral tonometry device. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of this method, including intraobserver and interobserver deviations, and to compare the results with those of Goldmann applanation tonometry and palpation of intraocular pressure (IOP). METHODS: A total of 40 eyes of 20 healthy volunteers were included. Two independent parallel observers (1 and 2) performed three replicate measurements per eye, respectively, both using TGDc01 tonometry, one observer (3) performed three replicate measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry, and one observer (4) measured the IOP via palpation. Intraindividual deviations within and between both observers using TGDc-01 tonometry and between all three methods were investigated about clinically relevance by comparison of medians and quartiles, statistically significance by pairwise sign tests. Comparisons between observers and methods were based on averaged IOP values of the three individual measurements for each observer and each patient. Intraobserver deviations were analysed by means of Friedman tests. RESULTS: Observers 1 and 2 showed a statistically significant intraobserver deviation when using TGCc-01 (Friedman p = 0.007 for observer 1 and p = 0.002 for observer 2). There was no statistically significant interobserver deviation between observers 1 and 2 (sign test p = 0.200); however, in 45% of the eyes interobserver deviations were larger than plus or minus 3 mm Hg. The median intraindividual deviation between TGDc-01 and Goldmann (TGDc-01 minus Goldmann) was 0 mm Hg (interquartile range -1; 2 mm Hg; sign test p = 0.522); but deviations were larger than plus or minus 3 mm Hg for 38% of the 40 eyes. Median intraindividual deviation between TGDc-01 and palpation (TGDc-01 minus palpation) was -2 mm Hg (interquartile range -4; 1 mm Hg; sign test p = 0.018), but deviations were larger than plus or minus 3 mmHg for 43% of eyes. Median intraindividual deviation between Goldmann and palpation (palpation minus Goldmann) was 2 mm Hg (interquartile range -2; 4 mm Hg; p = 0.429), but deviations were larger than plus or minus 3 mm Hg in 48% of the eyes. CONCLUSION: Interobserver deviations using TGDc-01 tonometry and intraindividual deviations between TGDc-01 tonometry, Goldmann applanation tonometry, and palpation of IOP were found to be clinically relevant. Thus, according to our results TGDc-01 could not be established as a substitute or diagnostic alternative method for Goldmann applanation tonometry. But as deviations between TGDc01 and Goldmann turned out smaller than between palpation of IOP and Goldmann, TGDc-01 seems to provide a better choice for tonometry in patients, in whom Goldmann applanation tonometry is not possible.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Deviations between transpalpebral tonometry using TGDc-01 and Goldmann applanation tonometry depending on the IOP level.

BACKGROUND: Recent comparisons between transpalpebral tonometry using TGDc-01 and Goldmann applanation tonometry were performed in populations with IOPs between 10 and 20 mmHg. The purpose of this study was to evaluate device deviations depending on different IOP levels (range 5-40 mmHg). METHODS: A total of 68 eyes of 68 patients were included and assigned to four IOP levels according to an initial applanation tonometry assessment: level I, <10 mmHg (n=8); level II, 10-19 mmHg (n=20); level III, 20-29 mmHg (n=20); and level IV, > or =30 mmHg (n=20). Two independent and randomized observers performed three replicate measurements per eye-observer 1 using TGDc-01 tonometry, and observer 2 using Goldmann applanation tonometry. Intraindividual deviations between measurement results were investigated concerning clinical relevance by medians and quartiles, concerning statistical significance by pairwise sign tests; p values <0.05 indicate local statistical significance. RESULTS: In patients with initial IOP > or =20 mmHg, TGDc-01-based tonometry significantly underestimated the IOP as based on Goldmann applanation tonometry (p<0.001). This effect increased with increasing IOP: IOP level III median difference (TGDc-01 - Goldmann) -1.3 mmHg (interquartile range, -2.5, -0.4), IOP level IV median difference -2.7 mmHg (-3.7, -1.0). In patients with initial IOP <10 mmHg, an at least gradual underestimation by TGDc-01 tonometry (p=0.219; median difference, -0.6, -1.6, 0) was observed. A total 18% of patients showed device deviations > +/-3 mmHg, and even 35% of those patients with initial IOP > or =30 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: TGDc-01-based tonometry demonstrated an increasing underestimation of IOP with increasing IOP levels when compared with the current standard method of Goldmann applanation tonometry.

Aged↗
PubMed2000

Comparison of the response of saline tonometry and an automated gas tonometry device to a change in CO2.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the speed of response of saline tonometry and an automated gas tonometry system by using standard tonometry catheters. DESIGN: In vitro validation study. SETTING: Experimental research laboratory. INTERVENTIONS: Tonometry catheters were placed in a test chamber designed to simulate the lumen of a hollow viscus and were exposed to a rapid change in CO2 from 0% to 5% or 10%. Measured CO2 over time was fit to a mathematical model to determine the response time constant (the time to reach 63% of the final value) for each system. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Response time to a change in CO2 was significantly faster with the automated gas system than with traditional saline tonometry. The mathematical time constant for a 5% change in CO2 in a gas environment was 2.8 mins (95% confidence interval, 2.6-3.0 mins) for the gas and 6.3 mins (95% confidence interval, 5.8-7.3 mins) for the saline technique. These times were longer for the CO2 change in a liquid environment: The time constant was 4.6 mins (95% confidence interval, 4.5-4.7 mins) for the gas system and 7.8 mins (95% confidence interval, 7.15-8.6 mins) for the saline tonometry. There was a significantly lower final equilibration value for the CO2 measurement with saline tonometry. There was essentially no difference in time constants for each system for a 5% change compared with a 10% CO2 change, except for a slightly faster time constant for the gas tonometry system with a 5% change in the gas environment (5%: 2.8 mins vs. 10%: 3.3 mins). CONCLUSIONS: The automated gas tonometry system has a significantly faster response to a change in CO2 than conventional saline tonometry.

Carbon Dioxide↗
PubMed1998

Comparison of air tonometry with gastric tonometry using saline and other equilibrating fluids: an in vivo and in vitro study.

OBJECTIVE: 1) To compare saline gastric tonometry monitoring with air tonometry (Tonocap) in a group of general ICU patients. 2) An in vitro investigation of the performance of other fluids used in gastric tonometry and to assess the effects of variation of temperature and carbon dioxide concentration within the range encountered in clinical use. DESIGN: a) A prospective, observational study in ICU patients b) A comparative laboratory study. SETTING: The general Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and the laboratory at Leeds General Infirmary. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Nine patients in the general ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: In vivo comparison of saline and air tonometry demonstrated a difference between the two techniques. Bland & Altman analysis showed a mean bias in the measurement of gastric PCO2 of 1.88 kPa with a precision of 1.22 kPa, with saline giving the lower result. In vitro, saline, air (Tonocap), gelatin and heparinised blood were used, at temperatures of 33-42 degrees C and at carbon dioxide concentrations of 4-8 kPa. While gelatin and blood gave unpredictable results, dependent on temperature and carbon dioxide concentration, air tonometry gave highly reproducible results. A consistent bias between the results with saline and air tonometry was seen over the range of temperatures and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations studied. The mean bias was 0.85 kPa with a precision of 0.40 kPa, saline consistently giving lower results. CONCLUSIONS: There are clinically significant differences in values for gastric mucosal PCO2 measured by air tonometry and saline tonometry both in vivo and in vitro.

Acidosis↗
PubMed1998

Intraocular pressure difference in Goldmann applanation tonometry versus Perkins hand-held applanation tonometry in overweight patients.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) caused by anatomic and physiologic factors in overweight patients when using Goldmann applanation tonometry. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy average-weight individuals who had no difficulties with IOP measurements at the slit lamp and 12 obese patients with suspected glaucoma who could position the head at the slit lamp only with great effort participated. INTERVENTION: The authors compared IOP values between slit-lamp-mounted Goldmann applanation tonometry and Perkins hand-held tonometry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The difference in Goldmann and Perkins IOP measurements was examined. RESULTS: In the group of obese patients, the mean IOP was 20.9+/-2.28 mmHg (mean +/- standard deviation; range, 18-26 mmHg) for the right eye and 21.4+/-3.16 mmHg (range, 16-28 mmHg) for the left eye when determined by Goldmann tonometry and 16.3+/-2.39 mmHg (range, 13-20 mmHg) for the right eye and 16.3+/-2.42 (range, 11-19 mmHg) for the left eye when determined by Perkins tonometry. The mean decrease was 4.5+/-1.3 mmHg (range, 3-7 mmHg) for the right eye and 4.9+/-1.9 mmHg (range, 2-9 mmHg) for the left eye. In the control group, the mean difference between the two types of tonometers for the right eye was 0.34+/-0.69 mmHg and for the left eye was 0.33+/-0.82 mmHg. Patients who had a falsely elevated IOP on Goldmann tonometry had an average body mass index of 34+/-3.82 (range, 28.5-41.9); most were female (5:1 ratio). CONCLUSION: The authors believe simultaneous breath-holding and thorax compression, with subsequent increase in venous pressure, may be a causative factor for transitory elevations of IOP. Perkins tonometry in obese patients may help avoid a false diagnosis of glaucoma caused by transitory elevations in IOP.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Dynamic contour tonometry and goldman applanation tonometry in eyes with keratoconus.

PURPOSE: The dynamic contour tonometer is a nonapplanation contact tonometer designed to be largely independent of the structural properties of the cornea. Theoretically, it may measure intraocular pressure most accurately in abnormally thinner corneas. This study compares intraocular pressure measurements by dynamic contour tonometry with Goldman applanation tonometry in eyes with normal corneas and eyes with advanced keratoconus. METHODS: A comparative case series. Subjects underwent intraocular pressure measurements by dynamic contour tonometry, Goldman applanation tonometry, ultrasonic pachymetry, and slit scanning topography. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: any ocular pathology other than keratoconus, previous corneal or refractive surgery, stromal scarring due to acute hydrops, or any other corneal opacities. RESULTS: Ten patients with keratoconus were included in Group A, and 12 normal patients composed Group B according to the pre-established criteria. The mean Goldman tonometry measurement in group A was 10.3 +/- 1.8 mm Hg and group B was 14.3 +/- 0.75 mm Hg. (P = 0.024). In group A, the mean measurement with the dynamic contour tonometer was 14.6 +/- 2.09 mm Hg, and in group B, it was 17.4 +/- 3.1 mm Hg (P = 0.026). The difference between both methods of measurement in group A was statistically significant (P < 0.0002). CONCLUSION: Intraocular pressure readings with dynamic contour tonometry in the keratoconus group were significantly higher than Goldman measurements and lower when compared to the control group. As there are no published manometric studies in eyes with keratoconus, these lower intra-ocular readings with the dynamic contour tonometry could be related to the discrepancy between the radius of corneal curvature and its tip, the significant thinning of the cornea, or other corneal biomechanical abnormalities related to advanced keratoconus.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Ocuton-S self tonometry vs. Goldmann tonometry; a diurnal comparison study.

PURPOSE: To compare 24-hour diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using the Ocuton-S applanation self tonometer and the Goldmann tonometer. METHODS: 24-hour diurnal IOP curves were obtained on 14 eyes of 7 trained patients suffering from medically controlled primary open angle glaucoma. IOP was measured every third hour starting at 9 a.m. with a calibrated Goldmann tonometer; one week later, a similar set of measurements was obtained with Ocuton-S self tonometry by the patients. One week later still, ultrasound corneal pachymetry was performed at the same hours. RESULTS: Overall IOP (24-hour mean) did not differ significantly between the different measuring techniques (ANOVA, p = 0.74), but the IOP differed in a statistically significant manner around the clock (ANOVA, p = 0.00006). The mean Goldmann tonometric readings were up to 2.8 mmHg lower than the Ocuton-S values during the daytime (9 a.m. to 9 p.m.), however, during the night (12 midnight to 6 a.m.) mean IOP measured with Goldmann tonometry was 2.2 to 3.3 mmHg higher than the corresponding average of the self tonometry readings. There was a statistically significant interaction between the type of tonometry and the time of the measurement (p = 0.0007). Central corneal thickness (CCT) showed a significant change during the 24-hour period (p = 0.000001). CONCLUSION: IOP shows a different diurnal curve when measured with the Goldmann tonometer and with the Ocuton-S applanation self tonometer. The instruments' readings might be influenced in different ways by the diurnal changes of the corneal thickness. Since Ocuton-S self tonometry underestimates the IOP in the early morning period, a careful evaluation is necessary when nocturnal and early morning IOP elevation is investigated with this technique.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Intraocular pressure and ocular pulse amplitude using dynamic contour tonometry and contact lens tonometry.

BACKGROUND: The new Ocular Dynamic Contour Tonometer (DCT), investigational device supplied by SMT (Swiss Microtechnology AG, Switzerland) allows simultaneous recording of intraocular pressure (IOP) and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA). It was the aim of this study to compare the IOP results of this new device with Goldmann tonometry. Furthermore, IOP and OPA measured with the new slitlamp-mounted DCT were compared to the IOP and OPA measured with the hand-held SmartLens,a gonioscopic contact lens tonometer (ODC Ophthalmic Development Company AG, Switzerland). METHODS: Nineteen healthy subjects were included in this study. IOP was determined by three consecutive measurements with each of the DCT, SmartLens, and Goldmann tonometer. Furthermore, OPA was measured three times consecutively by DCT and SmartLens. RESULTS: No difference (P = 0.09) was found between the IOP values by means of DCT (mean: 16.6 mm Hg, median: 15.33 mm Hg, SD: +/- 4.04 mm Hg) and Goldmann tonometry (mean: 16.17 mm Hg, median: 15.33 mm Hg, SD: +/- 4.03 mm Hg). The IOP values of SmartLens (mean: 20.25 mm Hg, median: 19.00 mm Hg, SD: +/- 4.96 mm Hg) were significantly higher (P = 0.0008) both from Goldmann tonometry and DCT. The OPA values of the DCT (mean: 3.08 mm Hg, SD: +/- 0.92 mm Hg) were significantly lower (P = 0.0003) than those obtained by SmartLens (mean: 3.92 mm Hg, SD: +/- 0.83 mm Hg). CONCLUSIONS: DCT was equivalent to Goldmann applanation tonometry in measurement of IOP in a small group of normal subjects. In contrast, SmartLens (contact lens tonometry) gave IOP readings that were significantly higher compared with Goldmann applanation tonometer readings. Both devices, DCT and SmartLens provide the measurement of OPA which could be helpful e.g. for the management of glaucoma.

Aged↗
PubMed1998

Gastric tonometry: in vivo comparison of saline and air tonometry in patients with cardiogenic shock.

Measurement of gastric intramucosal pH (pHi) has been advocated to assess gastric perfusion. Regional PCO2 (rPCO2) values are measured using saline tonometry (rsPCO2) and more recently using air tonometry (raPCO2). We compared 237 measurements of saline and air tonometry in 19 consecutive, severely ill patients (mean age 59 (range 31-76) yr, 19 males, APACHE II 22 +/- 7) with cardiogenic shock. Equilibration period was set to 90 min. Nineteen independent paired samples of mean raPCO2 and mean rsPCO2 of each patient showed good correlation (r = 0.93, P < 0.001). Mean raPCO2 was 6.5 (1.8) kPa and mean rsPCO2 6.8 (2.4) kPa. PCO2 measured by saline was significantly higher than that measured by air (P < 0.05). Bland and Altman analysis showed a bias (mean rsPCO2-mean raPCO2) of 0.3 kPa and a precision of 1.2 kPa. Agreement between the two methods decreased with increasing rPCO2 concentrations. Although air tonometry of rPCO2 is a promising technique, a systematic disagreement with saline tonometry at high rPCO2 values requires further investigation and cautious interpretation of these values.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry.

PURPOSE: To compare the measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and the effects of central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal curvature, and level of IOP on these methods. DESIGN: Cross-sectional population-based study. PARTICIPANTS: From the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study, 2157 participants of primarily Mexican ancestry. METHODS: Average GAT measurements were compared to DCT, and both were examined with respect to CCT (< or =500, 501-550, 551-600, >600 microns), corneal curvature (<42, 42-46, >46 diopters), and level of IOP (0-10, 11-20, >20 mmHg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean GAT and DCT IOP levels were compared for the entire population, and then trends for the CCT, curvature, and IOP groupings were analyzed. The magnitude of the difference of GAT minus DCT was compared for these different strata, with special attention to a difference of +/- 3 mmHg or greater, which was defined as clinically significant. RESULTS: Mean IOP for the entire population by GAT was significantly lower (14.4+/-3.2 mmHg) compared with DCT (16.0+/-3.6; P<0.0001). Both GAT and DCT IOP levels were lowest for thin CCT and increased stepwise with increasing CCT, but this difference was more pronounced with GAT than DCT (P<0.0001 and P = 0.0012, respectively). The difference between GAT and DCT was largest for thin CCT and decreased for thicker CCT (P<0.0001). After adjusting for CCT, the corneal curvature affected IOP measured by DCT (P = 0.02) but not GAT (P = 0.3) such that mean DCT IOP increased with increasing corneal curvature. After adjusting for the CCT effect on IOP and stratifying by DCT IOP groups, the greatest difference between GAT and DCT was seen in the lowest IOP group (3.55+/-3.1), became negative in the intermediate group (-1.86+/-2.60), and was most negative in the highest IOP group (-3.88+/-3.3; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Intraocular pressure measured by GAT was consistently lower when compared with DCT, and this difference was greatest with thinner CCT. Dynamic contour tonometry was also less affected by variations in CCT. Corneal curvature affected IOP measurements with DCT but not GAT, but this effect was less than the CCT effect on GAT. Goldmann applanation tonometry tended to underestimate IOP at higher levels and overestimate it at lower IOP levels when compared to DCT.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

[Principles of measurements in tonometry at the time of Albrecht von Graefes to D2 mission and self-tonometry].

There is no doubt that an elevation of intraocular pressure (IOP) precedes any morphological or functional glaucomatous damage for years, if not decades. Surprisingly, in the present glaucoma literature methods for a quantification of such a damage are prevailing. There might be two reasons for this: The question of tonometry is supposed to be perfectly and definitely solved or tonometry as the most significant diagnostic tool for an early diagnosis of glaucoma has been lost out of sight. Two aspects shall be discussed in the following: Firstly, we want to deal with an improved glaucoma management especially in the early phase of the disease. The question is when and how often should tonometry be performed to detect the typically greater diurnal fluctuations of IOP in glaucoma. This has already been pointed out in particular by Sampaolesi and Hager. Secondly, the technique of the most appropriate tonometer for this purpose is outlined. Important aspects are the accuracy of the instrument according to the standard set by the Goldmann applanatation tonometer as well as safety and easy handling. Like in other branches of medicine where the patient is more and more involved in his own disease control (eg self-measurement of blood pressure in patients with arterial hypertension), self-tonometry is likely to become a revolutionary step towards an improved management and follow-up of glaucoma. These are the objectives we should concentrate on. Technical solutions, clinical applications and experiences are demonstrated.

Circadian Rhythm↗
PubMed2004

Pressure phosphene self-tonometry: a comparison with goldmann tonometry in glaucoma patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the pressure phosphene tonometer (PPT) is suitable for self-tonometry in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: This was a prospective comparative study of 102 eyes of 102 patients with chronic glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements by the Goldmann tonometer (GT) were compared with self-measured readings with the PPT. Patients evaluated the ease of home use of the PPT. The last 15 patients were asked to stop their glaucoma medications, and the ability of the PPT to detect an elevated IOP during self-tonometry was studied. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD difference between PPT and GT readings was -0.24 +/- 1.57 mm Hg. Comparing the PPT with the GT, 86% of the readings were within +/- 2.0 mm Hg, and 91% were within +/- 3.0 mm Hg. Spearman's correlation coefficient was 0.91. A Bland-Altman plot showed that the 95% limits of agreement between the two methods lay between 2.90 and -3.38 mm Hg. Within-subject coefficients of variation for the GT and the PPT were 4.4% and 7.3%, respectively. In detecting an elevated IOP of more than 21 mm Hg, the sensitivity and the specificity of the PPT were 92.3% and 98.6% respectively. The mean satisfaction score for home use of the PPT was 87.4 +/- 16.3 (maximum 100). CONCLUSIONS: With proper training and technique, self-tonometry with the PPT appears to be accurate up to at least 25 mm Hg and is reproducible. The PPT was sensitive and specific in detecting an elevated IOP of more than 21 mm Hg. As patients were expected to seek ophthalmic care before the self-measured IOP reaches 25 mm Hg, the PPT may have a value for self-monitoring. Patients rated the PPT as satisfactory for home use. Because the PPT is portable and relatively inexpensive and requires no topical anesthesia or direct contact with the eyeball, it may have potential as an instrument for home self-tonometry.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Comparison of gastric air tonometry with standard saline tonometry.

OBJECTIVE: To compare partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2) measurements obtained by sampling gastric intraluminal air with those obtained by standard saline tonometry. DESIGN: Prospective, unblinded study. SETTING: Intensive care unit in a tertiary cardiac surgical center. PATIENTS: 20 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Gastric tonometric catheters were inserted, gastric fluid was aspirated, and 100 cc of air was injected into the stomach. MEASUREMENTS: After an equilibration period of 30 min, samples of gastric air and saline were anaerobically aspirated and analyzed on a standard blood gas machine. The reproducibility of PCO2 measurements in a given patient was assessed by analyzing consecutive samples of gastric air and calculating the coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: PCO2 values measured in samples of gastric air (PCO2 air) were highly correlated with those derived by saline tonometry (PCO2ss)(r2 = 0.95, p = 0.0001); PCO2 air was significantly greater than PCO2ss (50 +/- 17 vs 48 +/- 17 mmHg, p = 0.0001). Intramucosal pH (pHi) calculated from PCO2 air was significantly lower than that calculated from PCO2ss (7.26 +/- 0.23 vs 7.28 +/- 0.24, p = 0.0001). Analysis of intermethod differences showed significant bias for both PCO2 (2.4 +/- 7.6 mmHg, mean +/- 2SD, bias +/- precision) and pHi ( -0.023 +/- 0.074, mean +/- 2SD, bias +/- precision). The within-subject variability of replicate PCO2 measurements in gastric air was low (CV = 2.6 +/- 0.8). CONCLUSION: We conclude that intraluminal PCO2 can be accurately determined in postoperative cardiac surgery patients by instilling air into the stomach and analyzing samples of gastric air on a standard blood gas machine, In comparison with saline tonometry, air tonometry consistently yields lower pHi values.

Aged↗
PubMed1988

Oculab Tono-Pen, Goldmann applanation tonometry, and pneumatic tonometry for intraocular pressure assessment in gas-filled eyes.

We performed 84 intraocular pressure measurements with the Oculab Tono-Pen, Goldmann applanation tonometer, and pneumatic tonometer in 47 eyes that had undergone pars plana vitrectomy and gas-fluid exchange. Measurements made by using the Tono-Pen were accurate when compared to those made by Goldmann tonometry (mean difference, 0.74 mm Hg). In a subset of eyes with increased intraocular pressure (greater than or equal to 25 mm Hg), the Tono-Pen provided measurements similar to those made by Goldmann applanation tonometry (P greater than .60), with only three of 39 readings (8%) underestimating the Goldmann pressure by more than 3 mm Hg. Pneumatic tonometry significantly underestimated the intraocular pressure in eyes with increased pressure (P less than .001), with 20 of 39 readings (51%) underestimating the Goldmann pressure by 5 mm Hg or more.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed2006

Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in African American subjects.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in African Americans and to assess whether these measures were influenced by ocular parameters including corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and axial length. DESIGN: Observational clinical study. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 176 eyes of 94 African Americans. METHODS: All participants underwent IOP evaluation with DCT and GAT, as well as measurements of central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal curvature, corneal astigmatism, spherical equivalent, and axial length. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariate and multiple regression analyses were used to evaluate the associations between IOP (as measured with DCT and GAT) and CCT, corneal curvature, corneal astigmatism, spherical equivalent, axial length, and age. Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement between IOP measurements obtained by DCT and GAT. RESULTS: In multiple regression analysis, GAT IOP measurements were significantly associated with CCT (P<0.001) and age (P = 0.003), whereas DCT IOP measurements were associated only with age (P = 0.027). The difference between DCT and GAT IOP measurements was significantly influenced by corneal thickness (P<0.001) and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA; P = 0.004). Patients with thick corneas tended to have higher GAT IOP measurements compared with DCT, whereas in patients with thin corneas, GAT IOP measurements tended to be lower than DCT measurements. Larger values of OPA were associated with a decrease in the difference between DCT and GAT measurements, whereas smaller values of OPA were associated with an increase in the difference between DCT and GAT measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic contour tonometry measurements in African Americans seem to provide an estimate of IOP that is less influenced by corneal properties than those provided by GAT.

Adult↗