J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2015 Dec;56(12):1826-1830. 10.3341/jkos.2015.56.12.1826.

Comparison of Rebound Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry in Restrictive Thyroid Eye Disease

• Park HW
• Kim HY

• KMID: 2148741
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2015.56.12.1826

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) measured using the rebound tonometer (RT) and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in the primary position and upgaze in restrictive thyroid eye disease (TED).
METHODS
We measured the IOP in 30 subjects (54 eyes) who visited an ophthalmologist between May 2014 and May 2015. This study included 16 healthy volunteers (32 eyes) and 14 TED patients (22 eyes). The outcome measurements were the comparison of IOP readings; both intergroup and 2 measurements using the RT and the GAT for patients with restrictive TED and the control group. Upgaze IOP was measured on the central cornea with a 20-degree chin-down posture.
RESULTS
Both TED patients and controls showed an increase in IOP in upgaze compared with primary position (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in mean differential IOP between patients and controls measured using RT and GAT, respectively (p < 0.001). In the control group, there was no significant difference between the 2 instrument readings in upgaze as well as primary position for patients with restrictive TED (p = 0.853 in TED; p = 0.260 in controls).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our results, the mean IOP in conventional upgaze was significantly increased in TED patients compared to primary position using both the RT and GAT and no difference in RT readings compared with GAT readings. The RT can be used to establish IOP since no significant difference between the upgaze and the primary position readings was observed in patients with restrictive TED and is a simple and effective diagnostic tool unrelated to the position and the direction of gaze.

Keyword

Goldmann applanation tonometer; Intraocular pressure; Rebound tonometer; Restrictive thyroid eye disease

MeSH Terms

Cornea
Eye Diseases*
Healthy Volunteers
Humans
Intraocular Pressure
Manometry*
Posture
Reading
Thyroid Gland*

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. Distribution of IOP using RT and GAT for the TED and controls in primary position and upgaze. The boundary of the box closest to zero indicates the 25th percentile, the line within the box marks the median, and the boundary of the box farthest from zero indicates the 75th percentile. Whiskers above and below the box indicate the maximum and minimum values. And empty circle indicate the outlier. IOP = intra-ocular pressure; RT = rebound tonometer; GAT = Goldmann applanation tonometer; TED = thyroid eye disease.

Reference

References

1. Nardi M, Bartolomei MP, Romani A, Barca L. Intraocular pressure changes in secondary positions of gaze in normal subjects and in restrictive ocular motility disorders. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1988; 226:8–10.

2. Saunders RA, Helveston EM, Ellis FD. Differential intraocular pressure in strabismus diagnosis Ophthalmology. 1981; 88:59–70.

3. Zappia RJ, Winkelman JZ, Gay AJ. Intraocular pressure changes in normal subjects and the adhesive muscle syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol. 1971; 71:880–3.

4. Helveston EM, Bick SE, Ellis FD. Differential intraocular pressure as an indirect measure of generated muscle force. Ophthalmic Surg. 1980; 11:386–91.

5. Fishman DR, Benes SC. Upgaze intraocular pressure changes and strabismus in Graves' ophthalmopathy. J Clin Neuroophthalmol. 1991; 11:162–5.

6. Goldmann H, Schmidt T. Applanation tonometry. Ophthalmologica. 1957; 134:221–42.

7. Herzog D, Hoffmann R, Schmidtmann I. . Is gaze-dependent tonometry a useful tool in the differential diagnosis of Graves’ ophthalmopathy? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008; 246:1737–41.

8. Jorge J, Fernandes P, Queirós A. . Comparison of the IOPen and iCare rebound tonometers with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2010; 30:108–12.

9. Fernandes P, Díaz-Rey JA, Queirós A. . Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a nor-mal population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005; 25:436–40.

10. Nakamura M, Darhad U, Tatsumi Y. . Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of ap-planation tonometers. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142:332–4.

11. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M. . Comparison of ICare ton-ometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2006; 15:213–7.

12. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Castillo A, Garcia-Sanchez J. Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:4578–80.

13. Kohlhaas M, Boehm AG, Spoerl E. . Effect of central corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and axial length on applanation tonometry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006; 124:471–6.

14. Grieshaber MC, Schoetzau A, Zawinka C. . Effect of central corneal thickness on dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007; 125:740–4.

15. Moreno-Montañés J, Gosende I, Caire J, García-Granero M. Comparation of the new rebound tonometer IOPen and the Goldmann tonometer, and their relationship to corneal properties. Eye (Lond). 2011; 25:50–6.

16. Moreno-Montañés J, García N, Fernández-Hortelano A, García-Layana A. Rebound tonometer compared with goldmann tonometer in normal and pathologic corneas. Cornea. 2007; 26:427–30.

17. Lee KS, Kim SK, Kim EK, Kim TI. Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by non-contact tonometer, rebound tonometer, tono-pen, and Goldmann applanation tonometer. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2014; 55:47–53.