Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Various sources of error, including central corneal thickness (CCT) and structural corneal rigidity, have been proposed for Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The Pascal dynamic contour tonometer (DCT) is a novel device designed for intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements assumed to be largely independent of CCT and corneal curvature. We compared DCT with GAT in eyes with normal corneas of various thickness.

Methods

We prospectively measured IOP using DCT and GAT in random order in 100 eyes of 100 subjects (M:F=46:54; mean age 42±19, range 23–88 years).

Results

Mean DCT values were about 1mmHg higher than GAT readings (16±3 vs 15±3 mmHg, p=0.001). Bland–Altman analysis of individual pairs of DCT and GAT measurements revealed a bias of –1.0 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI): ±1.2]. Neither GAT nor DCT showed a significant correlation with CCT (533±48, range 399–641 μm).

Conclusions

In eyes with normal corneas, DCT allows suitable and reliable IOP measurements which are in good concordance with GAT. Comparison of DCT with intracameral manometry is desirable in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Argus WA (1995) Ocular hypertension and central corneal thickness. Ophthalmology 102:1810–1812

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brandt JD (2004) Corneal thickness in glaucoma screening, diagnosis, and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 15:85–89

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bron AM, Creuzot-Garcher C, Goudeau-Boutillon S, d’Athis P (1999) Falsely elevated intraocular pressure due to increased central corneal thickness. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 237:220–224

    Google Scholar 

  5. Copt RP, Thomas R, Mermoud A (1999) Corneal thickness in ocular hypertension, primary open-angle glaucoma, and normal tension glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 117:14–16

    Google Scholar 

  6. Duba I, Wirthlin AC (2004) Dynamic contour tonometry for post-LASIK intraocular pressure measurements. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 221:347–350

    Google Scholar 

  7. Duch S, Serra A, Castanera J, Abos R, Quintana M (2001) Tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis treatment. J Glaucoma 10:261–265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ehlers N, Hansen FK (1974) Central corneal thickness in low-tension glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 52:740–746

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S (1975) Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 53:34–43

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ehlers N, Hansen FK, Aasved H (1975) Biometric correlations of corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 53:652–659

    Google Scholar 

  11. Emara B, Probst LE, Tingey DP, Kennedy DW, Willms LJ, Machat J (1998) Correlation of intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness in normal myopic eyes and after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:1320–1325

    Google Scholar 

  12. Feltgen N, Leifert D, Funk J (2001) Correlation between central corneal thickness, applanation tonometry, and direct intracameral IOP readings. Br J Ophthalmol 85:85–87

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fournier AV, Podtetenev M, Lemire J, Thompson P, Duchesne R, Perreault C, Chehade N, Blondeau P (1998) Intraocular pressure change measured by Goldmann tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:905–910

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gimeno JA, Munoz LA, Valenzuela LA, Molto FJ, Rahhal MS (2000) Influence of refraction on tonometric readings after photorefractive keratectomy and laser assisted in situ keratomileusis. Cornea 19:512–516

    Google Scholar 

  15. Goldmann H, Schmidt T (1957) Über Applanationstonometrie. Ophthalmologica 134:221–242

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldmann H, Schmidt T (1957) Der Rigiditätskoeffizient (Friedenwald). Ophthalmologica 133:330–335; discussion, 335–336

    Google Scholar 

  17. Goldmann H, Schmidt T (1961) Weiterer Beitrag zur Applanationstonometrie. Ophthalmologica 141:441–456

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, Parrish RK II, Wilson MR, Kass MA (2002) The ocular hypertension treatment study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 120:714–720

    Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson M, Kass MA, Moses RA, Grodzki WJ (1978) Increased corneal thickness simulating elevated intraocular pressure. Arch Ophthalmol 96:664–665

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA (2003) Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:3790–3794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mardelli PG, Piebenga LW, Whitacre MM, Siegmund KD (1997) The effect of excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy on intraocular pressure measurements using the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Ophthalmology 104:945–948; discussion 949

    Google Scholar 

  22. Park HJ, Uhm KB, Hong C (2001) Reduction in intraocular pressure after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:303–309

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rashad KM, Bahnassy AA (2001) Changes in intraocular pressure after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Refract Surg 17:420–427

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rosa N, Cennamo G (2001) Goldmann applanation tonometry after PRK and LASIK. Cornea 20:905–906

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shah S, Chatterjee A, Mathai M, Kelly SP, Kwartz J, Henson D, McLeod D (1999) Relationship between corneal thickness and measured intraocular pressure in a general ophthalmology clinic. Ophthalmology 106:2154–2160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stodtmeister R (1998) Applanation tonometry and correction according to corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 76:319–324

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tomlinson A, Leighton DA (1972) Ocular dimensions in low tension glaucoma compared with open-angle glaucoma and the normal. Br J Ophthalmol 56:97–105

    Google Scholar 

  28. Whitacre MM, Stein R (1993) Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol 38:1–30

    Google Scholar 

  29. Whitacre MM, Stein RA, Hassanein K (1993) The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 115:592–596

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wolfs RC, Klaver CC, Vingerling JR, Grobbee DE, Hofman A, de Jong PT (1997) Distribution of central corneal thickness and its association with intraocular pressure: the Rotterdam Study. Am J Ophthalmol 123:767–772

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zadok D, Tran DB, Twa M, Carpenter M, Schanzlin DJ (1999) Pneumotonometry versus Goldmann tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 25:1344–1348

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Eye Clinic, University of Freiburg, Killianstrasse 5, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Mona Pache, Sonja Wilmsmeyer, Sonja Lautebach & Jens Funk

Authors
  1. Mona Pache
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sonja Wilmsmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sonja Lautebach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jens Funk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mona Pache.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pache, M., Wilmsmeyer, S., Lautebach, S. et al. Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243, 763–767 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-005-1124-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-005-1124-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation