Korean J Ophthalmol.  2009 Mar;23(1):27-31. 10.3341/kjo.2009.23.1.27.

Comparison Between Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry

• Lee J
• Lee CH
• Choi J
• Yoon SY
• Sung KR
• Park SB
• Kook MS

• KMID: 1115648
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2009.23.1.27

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the intraocular pressures (IOPs) measured by dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), and to investigate the association of IOPs on eyes of varying central corneal thickness (CCT).
METHODS
In this prospective study, 451 eyes of 233 subjects were enrolled. IOPs were measured by GAT and DCT. CCT was measured three times and the average was calculated. Each eye was classified into one of three groups according to CCT: low CCT (group A, CCT<520 micrometer, n=146); normal CCT (group B, 520 micrometer < or = CT < or = 550 micrometer, n=163); and high CCT (group C, CCT>550 micrometer, n=142). In each group, we investigated the association of CCT with IOP measurement by GAT and DCT.
RESULTS
The IOPs measured by GAT and DCT were significantly associated for all eyes (R=0.853, p<0.001, Pearson correlation). CCT was related with both IOP measurement by GAT and DCT with statistical significance (mixed effect model, p<0.001). However, subgroup analysis showed that CCT affected IOP measured by GAT for groups B and C, whereas it affected IOP measured by DCT only for group C.
CONCLUSIONS
IOP measured by DCT was not affected by CCT in eyes with low to normal CCT, whereas this measurement was affected in eyes of high CCT range. CCT may have less effect on IOP measurements using DCT than those obtained by GAT, within a specified range of CCT.

Keyword

Central corneal thickness; Dynamic contour tonometry; Goldmann applanation tonometry

MeSH Terms

Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cornea/ultrasonography
Female
Glaucoma/*diagnosis/physiopathology
Humans
*Intraocular Pressure
Male
Microscopy, Acoustic/methods
Middle Aged
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
Tonometry, Ocular/*methods
Young Adult

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Pearson correlation analysis of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by Goldmann tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry (n=451, R=0.853, p<0.001).

• 

  Fig. 2 (A) Association of central corneal thickness (CCT) with intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) (n=451, R=0.330, p<0.001). (B) Association of CCT with IOP measurement by Pascal-dynamic contour tonometry (P-DCT) (n=451, R=0.271, p<0.001).

Reference

1. Allingham R, Damji K, Freedman S, et al. Allingham RR, Damji K, Freedman S, editors. Intraocular Pressure and Tonometry. Shields' Textbook of Glaucoma. 2005. fifth ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;chap. 2.

2. Zhang H, Xu L, Chen C, Jonas JB. Central corneal thickness in adult Chinese. Association with ocular and general parameters. The Beijing Eye Study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008. 246:587–592.

3. Kanngiesser HE, Kniestedt C, Robert YC. Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2005. 14:344–350.

4. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004. 45:3118–3121.

5. Schneider E, Grehn F. Intraocular pressure measurement - comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry. J glaucoma. 2006. 15:2–6.

6. Kotecha A, White ET, Shewry JM, Garway-Heath DF. The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Br J Ophthalmo. 2005. 89:1572–1575.

7. Doyle A, Lachkar Y. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry over a wide range of central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma. 2005. 14:288–292.

8. Kass MA. Standardizing the measurement of intraocular pressure for clinical research. Guidelines from the eye care technology forum. Ophthalmology. 1996. 103:183–185.

9. Holladay JT, Allison ME, Prager TC. Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with regular corneal astigmatism. Am J Ophthalmol. 1983. 96:90–93.

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

11. Wolfs RC, Klaver CC, Vingerling JR, et al. Distribution of central corneal thickness and its association with intraocular pressure: the Rotterdam study. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997. 123:767–772.

12. Goldmann H, Schmidt T. Applanation tonometry. Ophtahalmologica. 1957. 134:221–242.

13. Shah S, Chatterjee A, Mathai M, et al. Relationship between corneal thickness and measured intraocular pressure in a general ophthalmology clinic. Ophthalmology. 1999. 106:2154–2160.

14. Foster PJ, Baasanhu J, Alsbirk PH, et al. Central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure in a Monglolian population. Ophthalmology. 1998. 105:969–973.

15. La Rosa FA, Gross RL, Orengo-Nania S. Central corneal thickness of Caucasians and African Americans in glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous populations. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001. 119:23–27.

16. Hahn S, Azen S, Ying-Lai M, Varma R. Central corneal thickness in Latinos. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003. 44:1508–1512.

17. Wu LL, Suzuki Y, Ideta R, Araie M. Central corneal thickness of normal tension glaucoma patients in Japan. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2000. 44:643–647.

18. Shimmyo M, Ross AJ, Moy A, Mostafavi R. Intraocular pressure, Goldmann applanation tension, corneal thickness and corneal curvature in Caucasians, Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003. 136:603–613.