J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2013 Feb;54(2):296-302. 10.3341/jkos.2013.54.2.296.

Comparison of Icare Rebound Tonometer with Goldmann Applanation Tonometry

• Lee K
• Lee JY
• Moon JI
• Park MH

• KMID: 2216666
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2013.54.2.296

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare Icare rebound tonometer (IRT) and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and investigate the clinical usefulness of IRT.
METHODS
In a retrospective study of 131 eyes with glaucoma and glaucoma suspect, intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured with IRT and GAT. The correlation between IRT and GAT and the influence of refractive error (spherical equivalent; SE) and central corneal thickness (CCT) were analyzed.
RESULTS
A distinct correlation between IRT and GAT was found. IOP measured with GAT was 2.23 +/- 3.16 mm Hg higher than with IRT (p < 0.001). As CCT increased, IOP was measured higher with both GAT and IRT. IOP in myopic eyes (SE > or = -5 diopter) was measured relatively lower than in hyperopic eyes (SE < -5 diopter) with GAT (+1.50 +/- 0.68 mm Hg) and IRT (+1.88 +/- 0.75 mm Hg).
CONCLUSIONS
IRT showed strong correlation with GAT, but IOP measured approximately 2 mm Hg lower. The IOP tends to measure lower at low CCT and in myopic eyes.

Keyword

Central corneal thickness; Goldmann applanation tonometer; Icare rebound tonometer

MeSH Terms

Eye
Glaucoma
Intraocular Pressure
Iron-Dextran Complex
Manometry
Peptides
Refractive Errors
Retrospective Studies
Iron-Dextran Complex
Peptides

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. Correlation of IOP obtained by GAT and IRT (r = 0.728, p < 0.001). IOP = intraocular pressure; GAT = gold-mann applanation tonometer; IRT = Icare Rebound Tonometer.

• 

  Figure 2. Bland-Altman plot. The differences between IOP obtained by GAT and IRT (GAT measurement minus IRT measurement) are plotted against the mean of the two measurements. IOP = intraocular pressure; GAT = goldmann applanation tonometer; IRT = Icare Rebound Tonometer; SD = standard deviation.

• 

  Figure 3. Scatter plot of CCT versus IOP obtained by GAT (r = 0.242, p = 0.005). CCT = central corneal thickness; IOP = intraocular pressure; GAT = goldmann applanation tonometer.

• 

  Figure 4. Scatter plot of CCT versus IOP obtained by IRT (r = 0.224, p = 0.010). CCT = central corneal thickness; IOP = intraocular pressure; IRT = Icare Rebound Tonometer.

• 

  Figure 5. Scatter plot of CCT versus ΔIOP (GAT-IRT) (r = 0.002, p = 0.978). CCT = central corneal thickness; IOP = intraocular pressure; GAT = goldmann applanation tonometer; IRT = Icare Rebound Tonometer.

Reference

References

1. Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Miani F, et al. Comparison of iCare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry in normal corneas and in eyes with automated lamellar and penetrating keratoplasty. Eye (Lond). 2011; 25:642–50.

2. Kageyama M, Hirooka K, Baba T, Shiraga F. Comparison of ICare rebound tonometer with noncontact tonometer in healthy children. J Glaucoma. 2011; 20:63–6.

3. Diaz A, Yebra-Pimentel E, Resua CG, et al. Accuracy of the ICare rebound tonometer in glaucomatous eyes with topical ocular hypotensive medication. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008; 28:29–34.

4. Leiva M, Naranjo C, Peña MT. Comparison of the rebound tonometer (ICare) to the applanation tonometer (Tonopen XL) in normotensive dogs. Vet Ophthalmol. 2006; 9:17–21.

5. Pakrou N, Gray T, Mills R, et al. Clinical comparison of the Icare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2008; 17:43–7.

6. Sahin A, Basmak H, Niyaz L, Yildirim N. Reproducibility and tolerability of the ICare rebound tonometer in school children. J Glaucoma. 2007; 16:185–8.

7. García-Resúa C, González-Meijome JM, Gilino J, Yebra-Pimentel E. Accuracy of the new ICare rebound tonometer vs. other portable tonometers in healthy eyes. Optom Vis Sci. 2006; 83:102–7.

8. Lee J, Lee CH, Choi J, et al. Comparison between dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2009; 23:27–31.

9. Yeom HY, Lee SJ, Lee JH, et al. Clinical application of pressure phosphene tonometer: comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometer in normal subjects. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:676–81.

10. Song MC, Koo HM, Baek NH. Clinical comparision of the ProTon and the Goldmann applanation tonometer. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1995; 36:2188–94.

11. Yim HB, KIM HI, Joo CK, Kim KB. Clinical comparision of the pulsair pneumotonometer, oculab tono-pen and Goldmann applanation tonometer. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1991; 32:364–70.

12. Krzyzanowska-Berkowska P, Asejczyk-Widlicka M. [Clinical evaluation of the ICare tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure]. Klin Oczna. 2010; 112((7-9)):217–20.

13. Scuderi GL, Cascone NC, Regine F, et al. Validity and limits of the rebound tonometer (ICare^®): clinical study. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2011; 21:251–7.

14. Muttuvelu DV, Baggesen K, Ehlers N. Precision and accuracy of the ICare tonometer - Peripheral and central IOP measurements by rebound tonometry. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012; 90:322–6. PMID: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.01987.x. Epub 2010 Sep 15.

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

16. Poostchi A, Mitchell R, Nicholas S, et al. The iCare rebound tonometer: comparisons with Goldmann tonometry, and influence of central corneal thickness. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2009; 37:687–91.

17. Ruokonen PC, Schwenteck T, Draeger J. Evaluation of the impedance tonometers TGDc-01 and iCare according to the international ocular tonometer standards ISO 8612. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007; 245:1259–65.

18. Detry-Morel M, Jamart J, Detry MB, et al. [Clinical evaluation of the dynamic rebound tonometer Icare]. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2006; 29:1119–27.

19. Fernandes P, Díaz-Rey JA, Queirós A, et al. Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005; 25:436–40.

20. Vandewalle E, Vandenbroeck S, Stalmans I, Zeyen T. Comparison of ICare, dynamic contour tonometer, and ocular response analyzer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009; 19:783–9.

21. Abraham LM, Epasinghe NC, Selva D, Casson R. Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer by experienced and inexperienced tonometrists. Eye (Lond). 2008; 22:503–6.

22. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, et al. Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2006; 15:213–7.

23. 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.

24. Munkwitz S, Elkarmouty A, Hoffmann EM, et al. Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer over a wide IOP range. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008; 246:875–9.

25. Kotecha A, Elsheikh A, Roberts CR, et al. Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47:5337–47.

26. Tranchina L, Lombardo M, Oddone F, et al. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure differences between an Air-Puff Tonometer and the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2012; [Epub ahead of print].