Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements With Goldmann Applanation Tonometry, Tonopen XL, and Pascal Dynamic Contour Tonometry in Patients With Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty.
Journal
Journal of glaucoma
ISSN: 1536-481X
Titre abrégé: J Glaucoma
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9300903
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2022
01 11 2022
Historique:
received:
03
03
2022
accepted:
17
07
2022
pubmed:
9
8
2022
medline:
8
11
2022
entrez:
8
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
IOP measured with Tonopen and DCT was higher than GAT in eyes that underwent DMEK. To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements measured based on Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), Tonopen XL, and Pascal Dynamic Contour Tonometry (DCT) in patients who had undergone descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and to appraise the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on IOP measurements. Thirty-four eyes (from 34 patients) who underwent DMEK at least 1 month before the study were included. We performed Tonopen XL, GAT, and DCT IOP measurements at 10 min intervals. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between GAT, Tonopen XL, and DCT. Spearman rank correlation was used to calculate the deviation from GAT readings by each device and correlate the readings with the CCT variable. The mean IOP values with GAT, Tonopen XL, and DCT were 14.9±5.8, 16.2±5.5, and 19.2±5.0, respectively. Statistically significant differences between GAT and Tonopen XL and between GAT and DCT were noted ( r =0.942 [0.885-0.971]; P =0.0001 and r =0.942 [0.885-0.971]; P =0.0001, respectively). DCT tended to return a higher IOP relative to GAT and Tonopen XL. CCT and IOP readings obtained by GAT, Tonopen XL, and DCT did not show a statistically significant correlation with each other. IOP as measured with both Tonopen and DCT was found to be higher than GAT in eyes that underwent DMEK surgery although the techniques showed a good correlation. After DMEK surgery, all 3 measurement techniques can be practical in routine postoperative examinations, however it is recommended to measure IOP with the same device during patient follow-up.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35939831
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000002089
pii: 00061198-202211000-00010
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
909-914Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Melles GR, Ong TS, Ververs B, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Cornea. 2006;25:987–990.
Price MO, Price FW Jr. Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty surgery: update on the evidence and hurdles to acceptance. Curr Opin Ophthalmol (2013);24:329-335.
Anshu A, Price MO, Price FW, et al. Risk of corneal transplant rejection significantly reduced with Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:536–540.
Ham L, Balachandran C, Verschoor CA, et al. Visual rehabilitation rate after isolated descemet membrane transplantation: descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:252–255.
Price MO, Giebel AW, Fairchild KM, et al. Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective multicenter study of visual and refractive outcomes and endothelial survival. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:2361–2368.
Maier AK, Wolf T, Gundlach E, et al. Intraocular pressure elevation and post-DMEK glaucoma following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252:1947–1954.
Naveiras M, Dirisamer M, Parker J, et al. Causes of glaucoma after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:958–966 e951.
Vajaranant TS, Price MO, Price FW, et al. Visual acuity and intraocular pressure after Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with and without preexisting glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:1644–1650.
Espana EM, Robertson ZM, Huang B. Intraocular pressure changes following Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010;248:237–242.
Maier AK, Klamann MK, Torun N, et al. Intraocular pressure elevation and post-DSEK glaucoma after Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251:1191–1198.
Ozeki N, Yuki K, Shiba D, et al. Intraocular pressure elevation after Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2012;56:307–311.
Moura GS, Oliveira GM, Tognon T, et al. Complications after Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2013;76:288–291.
Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:146–155.
Dielemans I, Vingerling JR, Hofman A, et al. Reliability of intraocular pressure measurement with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in epidemiological studies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1994;232:141–144.
Gloster J, Perkins Es. The validity of the imbert-flick law as applied to applanation tonometry. Exp Eye Res. 1963;2:274–283.
Grieshaber MC, Schoetzau A, Zawinka C, et al. Effect of central corneal thickness on dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125:740–744.
Kohlhaas M, Boehm AG, Spoerl E, et al. Effect of central corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and axial length on applanation tonometry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:471–476.
Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;44:367–408.
Whitacre MM, Stein R. Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol. 1993;38:1–30.
Shin JY, Choi JS, Oh JY, et al. Evaluation of corneal biomechanical properties following penetrating keratoplasty using the ocular response analyzer. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2010;24:139–142.
Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3790–3794.
Herndon LW, Choudhri SA, Cox T, et al. Central corneal thickness in normal, glaucomatous, and ocular hypertensive eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:1137–1141.
Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, et al. Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the TonoPen, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85:272–279.
Haddadin RI, Chodosh J. Corneal transplantation and glaucoma. Semin Ophthalmol. 2014;29:380–396.
Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, et al. Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective study of 1-year visual outcomes, graft survival and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:2368–2373.
Yoeruek E, Bayyoud T, Röck D, et al. Clinical results after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 2012;229:615–620.
Bochmann F, Kaufmann C, Becht C, et al. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry following Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2009;226:241–244.
Maier A-K, Gundlach E, Pahlitzsch M, et al. Intraocular Pressure Measurements After Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty. J Glaucoma. 2017;26:258–265.
Mawatari Y, Kobayashi A, Yokogawa H, et al. Intraocular pressure after Descemet’s stripping and non-Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2011;55:98–102.
Barleon L, Hoffmann EM, Berres M, et al. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients and healthy subjects. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142:583–590.
Doyle A, Lachkar Y. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldman applanation tonometry over a wide range of central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:288–292.
Francis BA, Hsieh A, Lai MY, et al. Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:20–26.
Herdener S, Pache M, Lautebach S, et al. Dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) versus Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) - a comparison of agreement and reproducibility. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;245:1027–1030.
Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J, et al. Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relationship to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:1532–1537.
Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Vico E, et al. Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and goldmann tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:2156–2162.
Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in African American subjects. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:658–665.
Schneider E, Grehn F. Intraocular pressure measurement-comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:2–6.
Ohana O, Varssano D, Shemesh G. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements using Goldmann tonometer, I-care pro, Tonopen XL, and Schiotz tonometer in patients after Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2017;65:579.
John SW, Hagaman JR, MacTaggart TE, et al. Intraocular pressure in inbred mouse strains. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:249–253.
Lleo A, Marcos A, Calatayud M, et al. The relationship between central corneal thickness and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Clin Exp Optom. 2003;86:104–108.
Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J, et al. Correlation between intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness, stage of glaucoma, and demographic patient data: prospective analysis of biophysical parameters in tertiary glaucoma practice populations. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:91–97.
Tonnu PA, Ho T, Newson T, et al. The influence of central corneal thickness and age on intraocular pressure measured by pneumotonometry, non-contact tonometry, the Tono-Pen XL, and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:851–854.
Siggel R, Christofi E, Giasoumi F, et al. Changes in corneal biomechanical properties after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2019;38:964–969.