Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements With the Reichert Pt100, the Keeler Pulsair Intellipuff Portable Noncontact Tonometers, and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry

被引:8
|
作者
Hubanova, Ralitsa [1 ,2 ]
Aptel, Florent [1 ,2 ]
Zhou, Thierry [1 ,2 ]
Arnol, Nathalie [3 ]
Romanet, Jean-Paul [1 ,2 ]
Chiquet, Christophe [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Grenoble 1, Grenoble, France
[2] CHU Grenoble, Dept Ophthalmol, F-38043 Grenoble, France
[3] Univ Grenoble 1, INSERM, U1042, Lab Hypoxia & Physiopathol, Grenoble, France
关键词
portable noncontact tonometer; intraocular pressure; screening; glaucoma; CENTRAL CORNEAL THICKNESS; OPEN-ANGLE GLAUCOMA; CLINICAL-PERFORMANCE; METAANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; AGE;
D O I
10.1097/01.ijg.0000435776.99193.41
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose:The aim of this study was to compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using 2 portable tonometers, the Keeler Pulsair Intellipuff and the Reichert PT100, with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT).Materials and Methods:Prospective cross-sectional study was conducted on normotensive and hypertensive patients recruited from the outpatient clinic of the University Hospital of Grenoble. IOP was measured using 2 portable noncontact tonometers (NCTs) and GAT in one eye of each patient in a random order. Central corneal thickness was measured with the Accutome PachPen Pachymeter. The Wilcoxon and t tests were used to compare the differences between tonometers, the Pearson and the Spearman correlation tests to evaluate the correlation among the methods, and the Bland-Altman plots to evaluate the agreement among the methods. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the agreement among the methods in normotensive and hypertensive patients separately.Results:A total of 137 eyes of 137 patients were included, 104 normotensive and 33 hypertensive eyes. We found an excellent agreement between PT100 and GAT (ICC=0.77) and between Intellipuff and GAT (ICC=0.75) in normotensive patients. We found a fair to good agreement (ICC=0.67) between PT100 and GAT in hypertensive patients. The agreement we found between Intellipuff and GAT was also excellent in hypertensive patients (ICC=0.86). Both NCTs significantly overestimated IOP measurements compared with GAT in normotensive and hypertensive eyes (mean of the differences between PT100 and GAT: 1.32.1 and 8.1 +/- 4.6 mm Hg in normotensive and in hypertensive patients, respectively (P<0.05), and between Pulsair Intellipuff and GAT: 1.5 +/- 1.8 and 2.3 +/- 4.8 mm Hg in normotensive and in hypertensive patients, respectively (P<0.05).Conclusions:The 2 NCTs agree well with GAT in normotensive patients. The Pulsair Intellipuff also agrees well with GAT in hypertensive patients.
引用
收藏
页码:356 / 363
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparison of Scleral Tono-Pen Intraocular Pressure Measurements with Goldmann Applanation Tonometry
    Badakere, Swathi Vallabh
    Choudhari, Nikhil S.
    Rao, Harsha L.
    Chary, C. Raghava
    Garudadri, Chandra Sekhar
    Senthil, Sirisha
    OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2018, 95 (02) : 129 - 135
  • [22] Intraocular pressure measurement - Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry
    Schneider, E
    Grehn, F
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2006, 15 (01) : 2 - 6
  • [23] Differential impact of prostaglandin analogues on agreement of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by Goldmann applanation, rebound, and noncontact tonometry
    Younhea Jung
    Hyun Suh
    Jung Il Moon
    BMC Ophthalmology, 21
  • [24] Differential impact of prostaglandin analogues on agreement of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by Goldmann applanation, rebound, and noncontact tonometry
    Jung, Younhea
    Suh, Hyun
    Moon, Jung Il
    BMC OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [25] Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry
    J Y F Ku
    H V Danesh-Meyer
    J P Craig
    G D Gamble
    C N J McGhee
    Eye, 2006, 20 : 191 - 198
  • [26] Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry
    Ku, JYF
    Danesh-Meyer, HV
    Craig, JP
    Gamble, GD
    McGhee, CNJ
    EYE, 2006, 20 (02) : 191 - 198
  • [27] Methods for Intraocular Pressure Measurement: Evaluation of Agreement Between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry and Goldmann Correlated Intraocular Pressure With Reichert's Ocular Response Analyzer
    Fraser, C. E.
    Ehrlich, J. R.
    Haseltine, S. J.
    Shimmyo, M.
    Radcliffe, N. M.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2010, 51 (13)
  • [28] A comparison of the Goldmann applanation and non-contact (Keeler Pulsair EasyEye) tonometers and the effect of central corneal thickness in indigenous African eyes
    Babalola, O. E.
    Kehinde, A. V.
    Iloegbunam, A. C.
    Akinbinu, T.
    Moghalu, C.
    Onuoha, I.
    OPHTHALMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS, 2009, 29 (02) : 182 - 188
  • [29] Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements
    Martinez-de-la-Casa, Jose M.
    Garcia-Feijoo, Julian
    Fernandez-Vidal, Ana
    Mendez-Hernandez, Carmen
    Garcia-Sanchez, Julian
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2006, 47 (10) : 4410 - 4414
  • [30] Clinical differences in rebound tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry measurements of intraocular pressure in adult patients
    Chiu, Zelia
    Collins, Camille
    van der Straaten, David
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2022, 50 (08): : 923 - 924