Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Intraocular Pressure Based on Dynamic Bidirectional Applanation and Air-puff Tonometry: A Comparative Study

Ayse E Bahadir Kilavuzoglu, Cemile B Cosar, Ali RC Celebi, Ugur E Al Parmak

Keywords : Air-puff tonometry, Corneal hysteresis, Corneal resistance factor, Intraocular pressure, Ocular response analyzer

Citation Information : Kilavuzoglu AE, Cosar CB, Celebi AR, Al Parmak UE. Intraocular Pressure Based on Dynamic Bidirectional Applanation and Air-puff Tonometry: A Comparative Study. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2019; 13 (2):68-73.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1251

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-08-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim: The aim of this study is to compare intraocular pressure (IOP) in healthy eyes measured via dynamic bidirectional applanation and air-puff tonometry, and to evaluate the effect of age, gender, the spherical equivalent (SE), mean keratometry (Kmean), corneal hysteresis (CH), and the corneal resistance factor (CRF) on IOP measurements. Materials and methods: IOP measured in 956 healthy eyes using the ocular response analyzer (ORA) and air-puff tonometer was compared in this cross-sectional retrospective study. Correlations between IOP, and age, gender, SE, Kmean, CH, and CRF were investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses. Bland–Altman plots were used to determine the level of agreement between the IOP values obtained with the two devices: IOP via air-puff tonometer (IOP-air-puff) and corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc) using ORA (ORA-IOPcc). Linear mixed modeling was used to evaluate the effects of the study parameters on IOP. Intermethod reliability was established by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (r). Results: The mean age of the patients was 39.56 ± 14.44 years. The mean IOPair-puff and ORA-IOPcc were 16.72 ± 2.37 mm Hg and 13.75 ± 3.12 mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean CH and CRF were 11.14 ± 1.61 mm Hg and 10.53 ± 1.65 mm Hg, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that both CH and CRF were significantly correlated with IOP-air-puff and ORA-IOPcc (p < 0.001). The 95% limit of agreement for IOP-air-puff and IOPcc was −2.843 to 8.784. There was a significant correlation between IOP-air-puff and ORA-IOPcc (r = 0.443, p < 0.001); the R2 value was 0.196. Conclusion: A low degree of agreement was noted between IOP-air-puff and ORA-IOPcc. The present findings show that air-puff tonometry overestimates IOP, as compared to ORA. Clinical significance: IOP based on air-puff tonometry must be interpreted in conjunction with other ophthalmologic findings and the same IOP measuring device should be used for follow-up evaluations.

PDF Share
  1. The AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS) 7: the relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;130:429–440. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(00)00538-9.
  2. Kass MA, Heuer DK, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:701–713. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.120.6.701.
  3. Leske MC, Heijl A, et al. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:48–56. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.121.1.48.
  4. Musch DC, Gillespie BW, et al. Intraocular pressure control and long-term visual field loss in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study. Ophthalomogy 2011;118:1766–1773. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.01.047.
  5. Rao HL, Addepalli UK, et al. Relationship between intraocular pressure and rate of visual field progression in treated glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2013;22:719–724. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e318259b0c2.
  6. Whitacre MM, Stein R. Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol 1993;38:1–30. DOI: 10.1016/0039-6257(93)90053-A.
  7. De Moraes CGV, Prata TS, et al. Modalities of tonometry and their accuracy with respect to corneal thickness and irregularities. J Optom 2008;1:43–49. DOI: 10.3921/joptom.2008.43.
  8. Roberts CJ. Concepts and misconceptions in corneal biomechanics. J Cataract Refract Surg 2014;40:862–869. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.04.019.
  9. Lam AK, Chen D, et al. The usefulness of waveform score from the ocular response analyzer. Optom Vis Sci 2010;87:195–199. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181d1d940.
  10. Ogbuehi KC. Assessment of the accuracy and reliability of the Topcon CT80 non-contact tonometer. Clin Exp Optom 2006;89:310–314. DOI: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2006.00068.x.
  11. David R, Zangwill L, et al. Diurnal intraocular pressure variations: an analysis of 690 diurnal curves. Br J Ophthalmol 1992;76:280–283. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.76.5.280.
  12. Laiquzzaman M, Bhojwani R, et al. Diurnal variation of ocular hysteresis in normal subjects: relevance in clinical context. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2006;34:114–118. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2006.01185.x.
  13. Shen M, Wang J, et al. Diurnal variation of ocular hysteresis, corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure. Optom Vis Sci 2008;85:1185–1192. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31818e8abe.
  14. Dielemans I, Vingerling JR, et al. Reliability of intraocular pressure measurement with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in epidemiological studies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1994;232:141–144. DOI: 10.1007/BF00176782.
  15. Ehlers N, Bramsen T, et al. Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1975;53:34–43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1975.tb01135.x.
  16. Sakalar YB, Keklikci U, et al. Comparison of different methods for measurement of intraocular pressure and evaluation of effect of central corneal thickness on measurement results. Turk J Ophthalmol 2010;40:156–159. DOI: 10.4274/tod.40.156.
  17. Farhood QK. Comparative evaluation of intraocular pressure with an air-puff tonometer vs a Goldmann applanation tonometer. Clin Ophthalmol 2013;7:23–27. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S38418.
  18. Lagerlöf O. Airpuff tonometry vs applanation tonometry. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1990;68:221–224. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1990.tb01909.x.
  19. Moreno-Montanes J, Maldonado MJ, et al. Reproducibility and clinical relevance of the ocular response analyzer in nonoperated eyes: corneal biomechanical and tonometric implications. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:968–974. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.07-0280.
  20. Schiano Lomeriello D, Lombardo M, et al. Repeatability of intra-ocular pressure and central corneal thickness measurements provided by a non-contact method of tonometry and pachymetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011;249:429–434. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-010-1550-3.
  21. Jorge J, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, et al. A comparison of the NCT Reichert R7 with Goldmann applanation tonometry and the Reichert ocular response analyzer. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011;31:174–179. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2010.00817.x.
  22. Eraslan M, Cerman E, et al. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements in healthy pediatric patients using three types of tonometers. Turk J Ophthalmol 2017;47:1–4. DOI: 10.4274/tjo.92593.
  23. Tranchina L, Lombardo M, et al. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure differences between an air-puff tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer. J Glaucoma 2013;22:416–421. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31824cafc9.
  24. Kouchaki B, Hashemi H, et al. Comparison of current tonometry techniques in measurement of intraocular pressure. J Curr Ophthalmol 2016;29:92–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.joco.2016.08.010.
  25. Oncel B, Dinc U, et al. Comparison of IOP measurement by ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour, Goldmann applanation, and contact tonometry. Eur J Ophthalmol 2009;19:936–941. DOI: 10.1177/112067210901900607.
  26. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, et al. Ocular response analyzer vs Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47: 4410–4414. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0158.
  27. Feizi S, Hashemloo A, et al. Comparison of the ocular response analyzer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer for measuring intraocular pressure after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:5887–5891. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-6771.
  28. Renier C, Zeyen T, et al. Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer. Int Ophthalmol 2010;30:651–659. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-010-9377-9.
  29. Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma 2006;15:364–370. DOI: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000212268.42606.97.
  30. Kotecha A, White E, et al. Intraocular pressure measurement precision with the Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometers. Ophthalmology 2010;117:730–737. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.09.020.
  31. Fukuoka S, Aihara M, et al. Intraocular pressure in an ophthalmologically normal Japanese population. Acta Ophthalmol 2008;86:434–439. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2007.01068.x.
  32. Moses RA, Liu CH. Repeated applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 1968;66:89–91. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9394(68)91794-7.
  33. Gaton DD, Ehrenberg M, et al. Effect of repeated applanation tonometry on the accuracy of intraocular pressure measurements. Curr Eye Res 2010;35:475–479. DOI: 10.3109/02713681003678824.
  34. Recep OF, Hasiripi H, et al. Accurate time interval in repeated tonometry. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998;76:603–605. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0420.1998.760518.x.
  35. Gunvant P, Watkins RJ, et al. Repeatability and effects of sequential measurements with POBF tonograph. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81: 794–799. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-200410000-00012.
  36. Sorensen PN. The noncontact tonometer. Clinical evaluation on normal and diseased eyes. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1975;53: 513–521. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1975.tb01771.x.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.