• Users Online: 164
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 3

Concordance between Goldmann, Icare Pro®, Corvis ST® and Tonopen® tonometry, and their correlation with corneal thickness


Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Militar Central, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, Bogotá, Colombia

Date of Submission25-Aug-2020
Date of Acceptance23-Oct-2020
Date of Web Publication13-Jan-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Patricia Hernandez Mendieta
Calle 138 # 74 . 51 Casa 27, Bogota
Colombia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/PAJO.PAJO_44_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Introduction: The objective is to evaluate the concordance of intraocular pressure (IOP) values by comparing three tonometers; Corvis ST (COR), Icare Pro (ICA) and Tonopen (TOP) with the gold standard, the Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT and the effect of the measurements by the central corneal thickness (CCT).
Methods: One hundred and eight eyes were selected (59 patients) who underwent IOP measurement with four instruments (Icare, Corvis, Tonopen and Goldmann). An univariate analysis was applied, and then a concordance analysis was performed in which the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated between the different instruments taking into account the corneal thicknesses to eliminate confounding effect in measurements.
Results: 109 eyes (59 patients) were included, 66% women and 34% men. Average age 52.2 years (SD 13.87). Univariate analysis was performed and a mean age 52.2 (SD ± 13.87) and mean IOP were obtained for Goldman 15 (SD ± 2.94), Icare 15 (SD ± 2.47), Tonopen 14 ( SD ± 2.85), Corvis 14 (SD ± 2.67).

Keywords: Corvis ST, glaucoma, Goldmann, Icare Pro, intraocular pressure, tonometer, tonometry, tonopen


How to cite this article:
Mendieta PH, Puerto ML, Goyeneche FG, Guacaneme AC. Concordance between Goldmann, Icare Pro®, Corvis ST® and Tonopen® tonometry, and their correlation with corneal thickness. Pan Am J Ophthalmol 2021;3:3

How to cite this URL:
Mendieta PH, Puerto ML, Goyeneche FG, Guacaneme AC. Concordance between Goldmann, Icare Pro®, Corvis ST® and Tonopen® tonometry, and their correlation with corneal thickness. Pan Am J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Apr 21];3:3. Available from: https://www.thepajo.org/text.asp?2021/3/1/3/306947




  Introduction Top


Glaucoma is the most common cause of irreversible blindness in the world, associated with increased intraocular pressure (IOP), without being an obligatory condition.[1],[2] It is a prevalent disease in all races; however, there is a special predisposition in some racial groups, such as black people[3] and the Latin American population; This is due to the fact that in these breeds a greater amount of pigment is deposited in the trabecular meshwork that does not allow the normal flow of aqueous humor and consequently raises IOP.[4],[5] Screening for the early stages of glaucoma could be based on the evaluation of patients with ocular hypertension,[6] bearing in mind that IOP reduction is the mainstay of treatment, and several studies have shown effectiveness in reducing the rate in the progression of the disease.[7],[8] The Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) was introduced since 1957, and it is considered the gold standard that estimates the IOP as the force required to flatten the cornea, derived from the Imbert-Fick principle.[9],[10] However; there are multiple factors that can distort the Goldmann tonometry results, such as corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and patient accommodation, as well as being a test with a certain subjective component.[11],[12]

The Tonopen (TOP) was introduced in the 80s, it is a portable device with a replaceable latex head, easy to use. It estimates the average of 10 measurements and is especially useful in irregular corneas or with edema, even in contact lens wearers.[13] The Icare (ICA) is a rebound tonometer, used since 1997.[14] The measurement procedure consists of contacting the probe by touching the central cornea, analyzing by means of a microprocessor the deceleration of the probe after the impact, in this way the IOP is taken after averaging six measurements.[15],[16] The Corvis ST (COR) provides an IOP value corrected for the corneal biomechanical parameters and incorporates a Scheimpflug camera (Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) that allows a real-time image of the anterior chamber of the eye where the corneal deformability in resulting to air impulse is shown.[17] The corneal biomechanical parameters it provides are the speed, time, and length of the first and second applanation, maximum concavity, amplitude of deformation, and corneal radius.[18],[19] As IOP is the only modifiable risk factor in the progression of glaucomatous optic neuropathy,[20] it is important to identify different measurement devices, know their principles, and correlate the differences in IOP measurements that can be obtained with each one of them.[21],[22] The objective of this article is to evaluate the concordance of the different methods for taking IOP and to identify the differences that can be generated due to central corneal thickness.


  Materials and Methods Top


Prospective analytical study of diagnostic test and concordance: 108 eyes were selected from 59 patients attending ophthalmological consultation at the “Country” medical unit. The sample selection was non-probabilistic for convenience in patients who attended the consultation. The inclusion criteria were: Age between 18 and 80 years, complete ophthalmological evaluation, and no gender distinction.

Patients with filtering surgery, tear film alteration, corneal pathology, refractive surgery in the last 3 months, and a history of keratoplasty were excluded. The main outcome was the concordance between IOP measurements with the different devices available for taking. Three (3) measurements were taken with each tonometer, with intervals of at least 3 min between measurements and 5 min between tonometers. All measurements were made by the same observer who did not know the objective of the investigation.

The devices used and the method of measurement were the following: Goldmann tonometry (GAT, Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland) with which IOP was taken with fluorescein and previous instillation of a topical anesthetic (Proxymetacaine) 5 min after the first measurement, IOP was taken with the Icare PRO (ICare®, Tiolat Oy, Helsinki, Finland), Tono-Pen AVIA® Tonometer and Corvis ST tonometers (Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany), with 5 min intervals between instruments.

Three valid measurements were made with Goldmann, Corvis, Icare, and Tonopen using the average value of each tonometer for the statistical analysis.

Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 22.0 software for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and Excel. A univariate analysis was performed to determine the absolute and relative frequencies for the sociodemographic characteristics. Subsequently, an analysis of concordance with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was performed between the IOPs taken by the different tonometers; these results were stratified according to the pachymetry values previously recorded in medical history. It was stratified into thin corneas <521 microns, normal corneas 521–550μ, and thick corneas >551μ to eliminate the potential modifying effect of corneal thickness on IOP measurements.

The study protocol was evaluated by the ethics committee of the Central Military Hospital of Bogotá which abides by the declaration of Helsinki, adopted in 2013, as well as Resolution number 8430 of the Ministry of Health of Colombia. During the investigation, the respective informed consents for the intervention were signed, and the confidentiality of the information related to the patients was guaranteed.


  Results Top


108 eyes of 59 healthy subjects who met the inclusion criteria were studied. The mean age was 58 (24–88) years. The distribution by sex was 66.3% women and 36.7% men [Table 1].
Table 1: Sociodemographic data

Click here to view


The mean corneal thickness was 534 μm (462–752 μm). Mean IOP measurement values for the Goldmann tonometer were 15.08 mmHg (standard deviation [SD] ± 2.94); with Icare tonometry were 14.61 mmHg (SD ± 2.47); the Tonopen were 14.15 mmHg (SD ± 2.85); and Corvis ST were 14.27 mmHg (SD ± 2.67) [Table 2].
Table 2: Average intraocular pressure (standard deviation)

Click here to view


For concordance evaluation, it was considered that the ICC is low if it is <0.4, moderate between 0.4 and 0.75 and excellent if it is above 0.75. Concordance analyzes were stratified according to corneal thickness, the results showed that among all the measurement methods the concordance was moderate with an average ICC of 0.58. For the tonometry with Icare versus Goldmann, the agreement was moderate for all corneal thicknesses (ICC 0.66, 0.516, and 0.63). The Tonopen versus Goldmann tonometers showed moderate agreement for thin and thick corneas (ICC 0.53 and 0.64) and low for normal corneas (ICC 0.36); Regarding the Corvis versus Goldmann concordance for thin and thick corneas, the results were moderate (ICC 0.498 and 0.496), and in normal corneas, they were poor (ICC 0.183) [Table 3].
Table 3: Concordance analysis

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The measurement of IOP by the different Icare, corvis ST, and Tonopen tonometers displays a moderate agreement when compared to Goldmann tonometry in patients with thin corneas. For patients with normal corneas, the agreement is moderate only with Icare; with the rest of tonometers the agreement was lower. Regarding thick corneas, all the tonometers showed moderate agreement. The results of this article show that the tonometer with the highest agreement between the IOP measurements compared to the gold standard was the Icare, followed by Tonopen and finally Corvis ST, which showed a moderate and lower ICC. These results are consistent with other studies. For instance, Chen et al. conducted a study in which they compared noncontact tonometers versus Icare versus Goldmann and found a high concordance between Icare and Goldmann;[17] corneal thickness was also found to mainly affect noncontact tonometers and to a lesser extent, Icare and Goldmann.[23],[24] On the other hand, studies have been found that conclude that there is no involvement of corneal thickness when taking IOP with other tonometers. Ramm et al. in their study reported that there was no influence of corneal thickness on IOP values during taking with Corvis ST, but there is a negative correlation between Goldmann tonometry and corneal thickness.[19] However, multiple studies have been carried out that show sources of error in taking IOP regardless of the type of tonometer and that I suggest the use of continuous measurements even in home intakes, which have shown no differences with the tonometry performed in the office.[25],[26],[27],[28]

This study concludes that the most concordant method for taking the IOP is IcarePro (ICA) compared to the gold standard; similarly, it is evident that the thickness of the cornea exerts a more pronounced modifying effect in some tonometers. It is important to expand the evidence on how tonometry can be performed. In Colombia, there are few studies that allow to evaluate IOP taking methods; therefore, it is necessary to study the variability that can be had in the population due to the versatility of factors such as race, gender and age, among others;[29],[30] in order to provide the best diagnostic method that allows early detection of IOP elevation as the main risk factor for glaucoma.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya'ale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegaram R, Pokharel GP, et al. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ 2004;82:844-51.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Gil M, Marroquin G. Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurement with Goldmann, Pascal and ORA tonometers. Colombian society of ophthalmology journal 2015;48:300-11.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Leske MC, Connell AM, Wu SY, Nemesure B, Li X, Schachat A, et al. Incidence of open-angle glaucoma: The Barbados Eye Studies. The Barbados Eye Studies Group. Arch Ophthalmol Chic Ill 1960. 2001;119:89-95.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Tielsch JM, Sommer A, Katz J, Royall RM, Quigley HA, Javitt J. Racial variations in the prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma. The Baltimore Eye Survey. JAMA 1991;266:369-74.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Varma R, Wang D, Wu C, Francis BA, Nguyen BB, Chopra V, et al. Four-year incidence of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Am J Ophthalmol 2012;154:315-25.e1.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M, et al. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1268-79. doi: 10.1001/archopht.120.10.1268. PMID: 12365904.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Okafor KC, Brandt JD. Measuring intraocular pressure. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2015;26:103-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Posner A. A disposable applanation tonometer. Eye Ear Nose Throat Mon 1965;44:70 PASSIM.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Goldmann H, Schmidt T. Applanation tonometry. Ophthalmologica 1957;134:221-42.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Kim NR, Kim CY, Kim H, Seong GJ, Lee ES. Comparison of goldmann applanation tonometer, noncontact tonometer, and TonoPen XL for intraocular pressure measurement in different types of glaucomatous, ocular hypertensive, and normal eyes. Curr Eye Res 2011;36:295-300.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Tejwani S, Devi S, Dinakaran S, Shetty R, Meshram P, Francis M, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of normalization of corneal deformation variables by the intraocular pressure in glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57:1082-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Mark LK, Asbell PA, Torres MA, Failla SJ. Accuracy of intraocular pressure measurements with two different tonometers through bandage contact lenses. Cornea 1992;11:277-81.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Kniestedt C, Punjabi O, Lin S, Stamper RL. Tonometry through the ages. Surv Ophthalmol 2008;53:568-91.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Tian L, Wang D, Wu Y, Meng X, Chen B, Ge M, et al. Corneal biomechanical characteristics measured by the CorVis Scheimpflug technology in eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma and normal eyes. Acta Ophthalmol 2016;94:e317-24.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Hong J, Xu J, Wei A, Deng SX, Cui X, Yu X, et al. A new tonometer The Corvis ST tonometer: Clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:659-65.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Wolfs RC, Borger PH, Ramrattan RS, Klaver CC, Hulsman CA, Hofman A, et al. Changing views on open-angle glaucoma: Definitions and prevalences The Rotterdam Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:3309-21.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Chen M, Zhang L, Xu J, Chen X, Gu Y, Ren Y, et al. Comparability of three intraocular pressure measurement: ICare pro rebound, non-contact and Goldmann applanation tonometry in different IOP group. BMC Ophthalmol 2019;19:225.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Bañeros-Rojas P, Martínez de las Casas JM. Concordancia entre la tonometría de Goldmann, Icare Pro y Corvis ST. Archivos de la Sociedad Española (Concordance between Goldmann tonometry, Icare Pro and Corvis ST. Arch Span Soc 2014;89:260-4.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Ramm L, Herber R, Spoerl E, Raiskup F, Terai N. Intraocular pressure measurement using ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer, and scheimpflug analyzer Corvis ST. J Ophthalmol 2019;2019:3879651.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Rödter TH, Knippschild S, Baulig C, Krummenauer F. Meta-analysis of the concordance of Icare® PRO-based rebound and Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2020;30:245-52. doi: 10.1177/1120672119866067. Epub 2019 Aug 29. PMID: 31466475.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Rödter TH, Knippschild S, Baulig C, Krummenauer F. Meta-analysis of the concordance of Icare® PRO-based rebound and Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients. Eur J Ophthalmol 2020;30:245-52.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Yildiz A, Yasar T. 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. Med Glas 2018;15:152-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Sng CC, Ang M, Barton K. Central corneal thickness in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2017;28:120-6.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Erb C. Relevance of intraocular pressure and tonometry in glaucoma. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2011;228:97.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Tan S, Yu M, Baig N, Hansapinyo L, Tham CC. Agreement of patient-measured intraocular pressure using rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in glaucoma patients. Sci Rep 2017;7:42067.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Rüfer F. Value of pressure measurements: Methods and sources of errors. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2016;233:847-55.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Brandt JD. Corneal thickness in glaucoma screening, diagnosis, and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2004;15:85-9.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Iester M, Mete M, Figus M, Frezzotti P. Incorporating corneal pachymetry into the management of glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:1623-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Ceruti P, Morbio R, Marraffa M, Marchini G. Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in healthy and glaucomatous eyes. Eye (London, England) 2009;23:262-9.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in African American subjects. Ophthalmology 2007;114:658-65.  Back to cited text no. 30
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1139    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded140    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal