Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 11, pp 2517–2521 | Cite as

Intraocular pressure measurement with Corvis ST in comparison with applanation tonometry and Tomey non-contact tonometry

  • Jan LuebkeEmail author
  • L. Bryniok
  • M. Neuburger
  • J. F. Jordan
  • D. Boehringer
  • T. Reinhard
  • T. Wecker
  • A. Anton
Original Paper
  • 97 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement can be performed with different methods. Newer methods have to be compared to the standard method, the Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). We herein compare two air-puff tonometers, the non-contact tonometer (Tomey NCT) and the Corvis ST (CST) with GAT in eyes with a broad spectrum of IOP.

Methods

Two hundred and forty-nine eyes of 249 patients (with diagnosis of either glaucoma or ocular hypertension) were included in this monocenter prospective cohort study. Each eye underwent IOP measurements via GAT, NCT and CST. Bland–Altman plots were calculated to compare the different methods in the three groups. Paired t tests were used for statistical comparison between the three measurement methods. The difference between the different methods was tested on correlation against central corneal thickness (CCT).

Results

Mean IOP in GAT was 17.6 mmHg (standard deviation (SD) 5.9), 16.3 mmHg (SD 5.6) in NCT and 18.0 mmHg (SD 5.5) in CST. Comparisons between GAT and CST vs. NCT showed significant differences (p < 0.001), while GAT vs. CST showed no significant difference (p = 0.1162). Mean CCT was 538.7 µm (SD 35.1).

Conclusions

Mean values of GAT and CST show comparable results. However, both GAT and CST differ significantly from NCT. NCT shows lower IOP values compared to both other methods.

Keywords

Glaucoma Intraocular pressure Corvis ST NCT GAT 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Goldmann H, Schmidt T (1957) Applanation tonometry. Ophthalmol J Int Ophtalmol Int J Ophthalmol Z Augenheilkd 134:221–242Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Neuburger M, Rosentreter A, Dietlein TS, Jordan JF (2011) Messverfahren der Tonometrie. Klin Monatsblätter Für Augenheilkd 228:118–124.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1246053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rüfer F (2011) Fehlerquellen bei der Goldmann-Applanationstonometrie. Ophthalmol 108:546–552.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-011-2370-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Domke N, Hager A, Wiegand W (2006) Augeninnendruck und Hornhautdicke. Ophthalmol 103:583–587.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-006-1364-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hohmann J, Schulze-Schwering M, Nyaka TC et al (2012) Vergleich des iCare-Tonometers mit dem Goldmann-Tonometer in Malawi. Ophthalmol 109:1098–1102.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-012-2599-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lomoriello DS, Lombardo M, Tranchina L et al (2011) Repeatability of intra-ocular pressure and central corneal thickness measurements provided by a non-contact method of tonometry and pachymetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:429–434.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1550-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reznicek L, Muth D, Kampik A et al (2013) Evaluation of a novel Scheimpflug-based non-contact tonometer in healthy subjects and patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 97:1410–1414.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303400 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neuburger M, Böhringer D, Reinhard T, Jordan JF (2010) Recovery of corneal hysteresis after reduction of intraocular pressure in chronic primary angle-closure glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 149:687–688.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2009.12.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hong J, Xu J, Wei A et al (2013) A new Tonometer—the Corvis ST Tonometer: clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmann Applanation TonometersIOP measurement with Corvis ST, NCT, and GAT. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:659–665.  https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.12-10984 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Core Team R (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bañeros-Rojas P, Martinez de la Casa JM, Arribas-Pardo P et al (2014) Comparison between Goldmann, Icare Pro and Corvis ST tonometry. Arch Soc Espanola Oftalmol 89:260–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oftal.2014.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smedowski A, Weglarz B, Tarnawska D et al (2014) Comparison of three intraocular pressure measurement methods including biomechanical properties of the CorneaComparison of three IOP measurement methods. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55:666–673.  https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13-13172 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steinberg J, Mehlan J, Frings A et al (2015) Pachymetrie und Augeninnendruckmessung mittels Corneal-Visualization-Scheimpflug-Technologie (Corvis ST). Ophthalmol 112:770–777.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-014-3188-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cook JA, Botello AP, Elders A et al (2012) Systematic review of the agreement of tonometers with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthalmology 119:1552–1557.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.02.030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Terai N, Raiskup F, Haustein M et al (2012) Identification of biomechanical properties of the cornea: the ocular response analyzer. Curr Eye Res 37:553–562.  https://doi.org/10.3109/02713683.2012.669007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yu A-Y, Duan S-F, Zhao Y-E et al (2012) Correlation between corneal biomechanical properties, applanation tonometry and direct intracameral tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol 96:640–644.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300124 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neuburger M, Maier P, Böhringer D et al (2013) The impact of corneal edema on intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry, Tono-Pen XL, iCare, and ORA: an in vitro model. J Glaucoma 22:584.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e31824cef11 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reinhard T, Sundmacher R (1999) Determining real IOP values. J Cataract Refract Surg 25:157–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marx W, Madjlessi F, Reinhard T et al (1999) More than 4 years’ experience with electronic intraocular needle tonometry. Ophthalmologe 96:498–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garway-Heath DF, Crabb DP, Bunce C et al (2015) Latanoprost for open-angle glaucoma (UKGTS): a randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet 385:1295–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pfeiffer N (2005) Ergebnisse der?Ocular hypertension treatment study? (OHTS). Ophthalmol 102:230–234.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-004-1150-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD et al (2002) The ocular hypertension treatment study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 120:714–720.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.120.6.714 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eye Center, Medical Center, University Hospital FreiburgUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineAlbert Ludwigs University of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  3. 3.AurichDentalAurichGermany
  4. 4.Augenarztpraxis Dres. Neuburger/Burau/SchmidtAchernGermany
  5. 5.Berufsausübungsgemeinschaft (GbR) Dr. med. Michael Vobig, Prof. Dr. med. Jens F. JordanFrankfurtGermany
  6. 6.Augenarztpraxis Dr. WeckerHeilbronnGermany

Personalised recommendations