Cargando…
Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer
Tonometry is a fundamental procedure in routine ophthalmologic examination. Although regarded as the reference standard, the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) has its limitations. A new portable alternative to the GAT is the iCare rebound tonometer (RT). The aim of the present study was to compar...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
D.A. Spandidos
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443276/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28565785 http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.4164 |
_version_ | 1783238545453875200 |
---|---|
author | Gao, Feng Liu, Xu Zhao, Qing Pan, Yingzhe |
author_facet | Gao, Feng Liu, Xu Zhao, Qing Pan, Yingzhe |
author_sort | Gao, Feng |
collection | PubMed |
description | Tonometry is a fundamental procedure in routine ophthalmologic examination. Although regarded as the reference standard, the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) has its limitations. A new portable alternative to the GAT is the iCare rebound tonometer (RT). The aim of the present study was to compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) results obtained using the RT and GAT and then correlate the results with the central corneal thickness (CCT). Moreover, the tolerability and safety of the RT were evaluated. The IOP of 336 patients (672 eyes) was determined by the RT and GAT. The patients were divided into three groups (group A, 7–15 mmHg, n=74; group B, 16–22 mmHg, n=218; and group C, 23–50 mmHg, n=44), based on the GAT IOP readings. Pachymetry and slit lamp inspection were also performed. To establish an agreement between the devices, a Bland-Altman analysis and paired t-test were performed. The correlation between CCT and IOP readings obtained by the two devices were assessed using linear regression correlation analysis. The mean IOP values of the RT and the GAT were 18.30±5.10 and 18.52±4.46 mmHg, respectively. There were no significant differences between them (t=−1.31, P=0.19). The 95% confidence interval of the differences between the two devices was −5.80–6.24 mmHg. The RT readings are correlated well with those of GAT (r=0.806, P=0.001). However, the RT measurements were significantly (t=−2.84, P=0.007) lower (−1.66±3.87 mmHg) than those obtained with GAT when GAT ≥23 mmHg. Both the RT (r=0.390, P=0.001) and the GAT (r=0.191, P=0.001) showed positive correlations with CCT. The IOP measurement with RT was well tolerated. None of the corneal epithelial defects was detected and all subjects denied discomfort. The RT is well tolerated and safe, and can be considered a reliable alternative to GAT for patients in a low to moderate IOP range. However, in patients with high IOP values, the measurements obtained with RT did not correlate well with those obtained by GAT. The RT readings are influenced more by CCT compared to GAT. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5443276 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | D.A. Spandidos |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54432762017-05-30 Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer Gao, Feng Liu, Xu Zhao, Qing Pan, Yingzhe Exp Ther Med Articles Tonometry is a fundamental procedure in routine ophthalmologic examination. Although regarded as the reference standard, the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) has its limitations. A new portable alternative to the GAT is the iCare rebound tonometer (RT). The aim of the present study was to compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) results obtained using the RT and GAT and then correlate the results with the central corneal thickness (CCT). Moreover, the tolerability and safety of the RT were evaluated. The IOP of 336 patients (672 eyes) was determined by the RT and GAT. The patients were divided into three groups (group A, 7–15 mmHg, n=74; group B, 16–22 mmHg, n=218; and group C, 23–50 mmHg, n=44), based on the GAT IOP readings. Pachymetry and slit lamp inspection were also performed. To establish an agreement between the devices, a Bland-Altman analysis and paired t-test were performed. The correlation between CCT and IOP readings obtained by the two devices were assessed using linear regression correlation analysis. The mean IOP values of the RT and the GAT were 18.30±5.10 and 18.52±4.46 mmHg, respectively. There were no significant differences between them (t=−1.31, P=0.19). The 95% confidence interval of the differences between the two devices was −5.80–6.24 mmHg. The RT readings are correlated well with those of GAT (r=0.806, P=0.001). However, the RT measurements were significantly (t=−2.84, P=0.007) lower (−1.66±3.87 mmHg) than those obtained with GAT when GAT ≥23 mmHg. Both the RT (r=0.390, P=0.001) and the GAT (r=0.191, P=0.001) showed positive correlations with CCT. The IOP measurement with RT was well tolerated. None of the corneal epithelial defects was detected and all subjects denied discomfort. The RT is well tolerated and safe, and can be considered a reliable alternative to GAT for patients in a low to moderate IOP range. However, in patients with high IOP values, the measurements obtained with RT did not correlate well with those obtained by GAT. The RT readings are influenced more by CCT compared to GAT. D.A. Spandidos 2017-05 2017-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5443276/ /pubmed/28565785 http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.4164 Text en Copyright: © Gao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Articles Gao, Feng Liu, Xu Zhao, Qing Pan, Yingzhe Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer |
title | Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer |
title_full | Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer |
title_fullStr | Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer |
title_short | Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer |
title_sort | comparison of the icare rebound tonometer and the goldmann applanation tonometer |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443276/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28565785 http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.4164 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gaofeng comparisonoftheicarereboundtonometerandthegoldmannapplanationtonometer AT liuxu comparisonoftheicarereboundtonometerandthegoldmannapplanationtonometer AT zhaoqing comparisonoftheicarereboundtonometerandthegoldmannapplanationtonometer AT panyingzhe comparisonoftheicarereboundtonometerandthegoldmannapplanationtonometer |