Comparative Study of Intraocular Pressure Measurements with Airpuff, iCare and Goldmann Applanation Tonometers

Purpose:  To compare the difference in intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements by Airpuff, iCare and Goldmann Applanation Tonometers (GAT). Study Design:  Comparative analytical study. Place and Duration of Study:  Department of Ophthalmology, Mohi-ud-Din Teaching Hospital, Mirpur Azad Kashmir, from June 2020 to August 2020. Methods:  Twenty-five patients (50 eyes) were included in this study. IOP was measured in each eye firstly by Airpuff tonometery, then by iCare tonometery and lastly by Goldmann applanation tonometer. Three consecutive readings were taken in each eye. If there was a difference of 2 mm Hg or more among the readings, measurement was repeated. Once we got three readings, their average was taken and analyzed. Comparison of IOP readings between these tonometers was done. Results:  Mean IOP was 15.84 ± 2.736 mm Hg with Airpuff Tonometer, 14.48 ± 2.435 mm Hg with iCare Tonopen and 14.74 ± 2.489 mm Hg with Goldman Applanation Tonometer. The difference between the mean Airpuff and Goldman Applanation Tonometer readings was 1.10 mm Hg which was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.083). The difference between the mean Goldman Applanation Tonometer and iCare Tonopen readings was 0.26 mm Hg which is also not statistically significant (p-value = 0.867). But, the difference between the mean iCare Tonopen and Airpuff Tonometer readings was -1.36 mm Hg which was statistically significant (p-value = 0.02). Conclusion:  It is concluded that IOP readings taken by iCare Tonopen and Airpuff Tonometer are comparable to those taken by Goldman Applanation Tonometer and iCare Tonopen underestimates the IOP when compared with Airpuff Tonometer. Key Words:  Airpuff Tonometer, Glaucoma, Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, iCare Tonometer, Intraocular Pressure.

[1]  S. Aceituno Paredes,et al.  Rebound tonometry with re-sterilised tips versus Goldmann applanation tonometry in children. , 2020, Archivos de la Sociedad Espanola de Oftalmologia.

[2]  F. Krummenauer,et al.  Meta-analysis of the concordance of Icare® PRO–based rebound and Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients , 2020, European journal of ophthalmology.

[3]  M. Wojtkowski,et al.  Air-Puff-Induced Dynamics of Ocular Components Measured with Optical Biometry. , 2019, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[4]  K. Park,et al.  Exogenous influences on intraocular pressure , 2019, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[5]  G. Demirci,et al.  Comparison of rebound tonometry and non-contact airpuff tonometry to Goldmann applanation tonometry , 2019, Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology.

[6]  D. Spandidos,et al.  Normal-tension glaucoma: Pathogenesis and genetics , 2018, Experimental and therapeutic medicine.

[7]  L. Rosen,et al.  Comparison of Disposable Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, ICare ic100, and Tonopen XL to Standards of Care Goldmann Nondisposable Applanation Tonometer for Measuring Intraocular Pressure , 2018, Journal of glaucoma.

[8]  Sadık Şencan,et al.  A comparison of NCT, Goldman application tonometry values with and without fluorescein , 2018, Clinical ophthalmology.

[9]  T. Yaşar,et al.  Comparison of Goldmann applanation, non-contact, dynamic contour and tonopen tonometry measurements in healthy and glaucomatous eyes, and effect of central corneal thickness on the measurement results. , 2018, Medicinski glasnik : official publication of the Medical Association of Zenica-Doboj Canton, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[10]  M. Kass,et al.  What We Have Learned From the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. , 2018, American journal of ophthalmology.

[11]  A. Ragan,et al.  Disinfection of the Goldman applanation tonometer: a systematic review. , 2017, Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie.

[12]  Jeffrey M. Liebmann,et al.  Detection and measurement of clinically meaningful visual field progression in clinical trials for glaucoma , 2017, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[13]  M. Ang,et al.  Central corneal thickness in glaucoma , 2016, Current opinion in ophthalmology.

[14]  F. LoVecchio,et al.  Icare vs Tono-Pen in the ED. , 2016, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[15]  M. Thakar,et al.  Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometer, Tono-Pen and noncontact tonometer in children , 2016, Oman journal of ophthalmology.

[16]  Eckart Bertelmann,et al.  Comparison of ICare and IOPen vs Goldmann applanation tonometry according to international standards 8612 in glaucoma patients. , 2016, International journal of ophthalmology.

[17]  D. Grewal,et al.  A Comparative Study of Rebound Tonometry With Tonopen and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry Following Vitreoretinal Surgery. , 2016, American journal of ophthalmology.

[18]  R. Shetty,et al.  A cross-sectional study to compare intraocular pressure measurement by sequential use of Goldman applanation tonometry, dynamic contour tonometry, ocular response analyzer, and Corvis ST , 2015, Indian journal of ophthalmology.

[19]  M. Kaneko,et al.  Intraocular pressure readings obtained through soft contact lenses using four types of tonometer , 2015, Clinical ophthalmology.

[20]  P. Foster,et al.  The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys , 2002, The British journal of ophthalmology.