Intraocular pressure measurement using ICare rebound tonometer in different positions of eye and different locations on cornea

被引:0
|
作者
Wongwanwatana, Sirada [1 ]
Treesit, Isaraporn [1 ]
Funarunart, Panrapee [1 ]
Iemsomboon, Wallop [1 ]
Choontanom, Raveewan [1 ]
机构
[1] Phramongkutklao Hosp, Dept Ophthalmol, Phramongkutklao Coll Med, 315 Ratchawithi Rd, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
关键词
IC200; iCare rebound tonometer; intraocular pressure; GOLDMANN APPLANATION TONOMETER; AGREEMENT;
D O I
10.1097/MD.0000000000034874
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Intraocular pressure (IOP) is one of the most crucial aspects for diagnosis and treatment plan among patients with glaucoma. Although the gold standard for IOP measurement is Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT)([1]), it must be mounted to a slit lamp biomicroscope. However, rebound tonometer has become popular due to its ease of operation and portable design, does not require topical anesthesia, and results do not differ significantly from those of GAT([2]). The purpose of this cross-sectional study is to investigate the difference in IOP measurement with iCare IC200 in different angles of the eye and different corneal locations. All participants underwent IOP measurement by GAT twice. Then, IOP was measured with iCare by a single physician. IOP was measured in a straight manner in the upright patient position; then participants were asked to look at fixation targets, which located in four different points. IOP was measured in upgaze, downgaze, medial gaze, and lateral gaze. Then, IOP was measured at 2mm from limbus in superior, inferior, nasal, and temporal cornea. All methods were measured twice, and the mean was used for calculation. The physician who measured IOP by iCare was masked from GAT results. A total of 168 eyes were tested with a mean age of 62.15 +/- 12.34 years. Mean IOP measured by GAT and iCare at the central cornea was 15.53 +/- 5.57 and 14.78 +/- 6.14 mmHg, respectively. The standardized mean difference (SMD) between iCare and GAT was 0.13 (-0.09-0.34), which is insignificant. The average IOP was 0.6, 0.47, 0.91, and 0.44 mmHg lower than the primary position in upgaze, downgaze, medial gaze, and lateral gaze 15degrees angulated positions respectively (p<.01). IOPs at 2mm from limbus in the inferior, nasal, and temporal cornea were 0.5, 0.69, and 0.57 mmHg lower than IOP measured at the central cornea (p=<.01). IOP measurements with iCare in different angles of eye were statistically significantly lower than in the primary position. Similarly, IOPs at different locations on cornea were lower than at the central cornea. However, the difference in IOP measurements with iCare in different angles of the eye and different corneal locations was in the trivial range and might be clinically insignificant.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Comparability of three intraocular pressure measurement: iCare pro rebound, non-contact and Goldmann applanation tonometry in different IOP group
    Chen, Min
    Zhang, Lina
    Xu, Jia
    Chen, Xinyi
    Gu, Yuxiang
    Ren, Yuping
    Wang, Kaijun
    BMC OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2019, 19 (01)
  • [12] Intraocular pressure measurements using the TONOVET(R) rebound tonometer: Influence of the probe-cornea distance
    Rodrigues, Blanche D.
    Montiani-Ferreira, Fabiano
    Bortolini, Mariza
    Somma, Andre T.
    Komaromy, Andras M.
    Dornbusch, Peterson Triches
    VETERINARY OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2021, 24 : 175 - 185
  • [13] Validation of intraocular pressure measurement using tonometer AVIA across different postures: A Bland Altman analysis
    Muhsen, Sana
    Rabadi, Alexander
    Alqudah, Mahmoud
    Obiedat, Abdelrahman
    Owies, Liyana
    Alhawaniah, Ibrahim
    Hafez, Sufian Abdel
    Al-Ani, Abdallah
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2025, 35 (01) : 197 - 205
  • [14] Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements between Icare Pro Rebound Tonometer and Tono-Pen XL Tonometer in Supine and Lateral Decubitus Body Positions
    Lee, Tae-Eun
    Yoo, Chungkwon
    Hwang, Jin-Young
    Lin, Shan
    Kim, Yong Yeon
    CURRENT EYE RESEARCH, 2015, 40 (09) : 923 - 929
  • [15] Diagnostic accuracy of the iCare rebound tonometer compared to the Perkins applanation tonometer in assessing intraocular pressure in rural patients
    Li, Yifan
    Carpenter, Christopher R.
    Nicholson, Kathryn
    Milne, William Ken
    DIAGNOSIS, 2015, 2 (04) : 227 - 234
  • [16] Comparison of intraocular pressure in healthy brachycephalic and nonbrachycephalic cats using the Icare® TONOVET Plus rebound tonometer
    Kerdchuchuen, Kamolchanok
    Samathayanon, Kingkarn
    Phientong, Pitchapa
    Chattraphirat, Suprapha
    Jaturakan, Orapun
    Tuntivanich, Nalinee
    VETERINARY OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2021, 24 (05) : 484 - 490
  • [17] A comparison of postural and diurnal variations in intraocular pressure using the iCare rebound tonometer and Perkins applanation tonometer in admitted adults in Kenya
    Chikasirimobi, Timothy G.
    Ndinyo, Mercy
    Ondieki, Maxine N.
    Miti, Isaac
    Ejiochi-Iyoke, Ndidi J.
    Osuagwu, Uchechukwu L.
    Zeried, Ferial M.
    Agho, Kingsley
    Ogbuehi, Kelechi C.
    Mashige, Khathutshelo P.
    AFRICAN VISION AND EYE HEALTH JOURNAL, 2021, 80 (01):
  • [18] Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements and Assessment of Intraobserver and Interobserver Reproducibility With the Portable ICare Rebound Tonometer and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in Glaucoma Patients
    Salim, Sarwat
    Du, Haiming
    Wan, Jim
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2013, 22 (04) : 325 - 329
  • [19] Effectiveness of the ICare rebound tonometer in patients with overestimated intraocular pressure due to tight orbit syndrome
    Y. K. Lee
    J. Y. Lee
    J. I. Moon
    M. H. Park
    Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology, 2014, 58 : 496 - 502
  • [20] Evaluation of the Icare-ONE rebound tonometer as a self-measuring intraocular pressure device in normal subjects
    Halkiadakis, Ioannis
    Stratos, Aimilianos
    Stergiopoulos, George
    Patsea, Eleni
    Skouriotis, Sotiris
    Mitropoulos, Panagiotis
    Papaconstantinou, Dimitrios
    Georgopoulos, Gerasimos
    GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2012, 250 (08) : 1207 - 1211