Comparación del tonómetro Pascal® con el neumotonómetro y el tonómetro Goldmann

  1. H. Heras-Mulero
  2. J. Moreno-Montañés
  3. L.M. Sádaba Echarri
  4. L. Mendiluce Martín
Revista:
Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmologia

ISSN: 0365-6691

Ano de publicación: 2007

Volume: 82

Número: 6

Páxinas: 337-341

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.4321/S0365-66912007000600004 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmologia

Resumo

Purpose: To compare the intraocular pressure measurements as defined by the Pascal® tonometer, the Goldmann tonometer and the pneumotonometer. Methods: This was an observational clinical study, which included two hundred and five randomly selected subjects recruited from the Ophthalmology Department. The intraocular pressure measurements were performed with each tonometry technique in a randomized order. Results: The Pascal®’s intraocular pressure measurement was significantly higher than that measured by the other two tonometers (p<0.05). The quality data of Pascal® was: optimum in 27.3% (56 of 205 patients), acceptable in 42% (86 of 205 patients) and unacceptable in 23.4% (48 of 205 patients). In 7.3% (15 of 205 patients) it was impossible to obtain any measurement using Pascal®. A weak correlation coefficient between the Pascal® and the Goldmann, and between Pascal® and the pneumotonometer was found. The Bland-Altman method of measurement using these tonometers showed a high degree of discordance. Conclusion: As reported by others authors, the Pascal®’s intraocular pressure measurement is higher than that of the Goldmann tonometer. The measurement differs from 0.7 to 4.4 mmHg. In corneas with pathology, it is very difficult or even unacceptable to measure the intraocular pressure using the Pascal® tonometer.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Kamppeter, BA, Jonas, JB. (2005). Dynamic contour tonometry for intraocular pressure measurement. Am J Ophthalmol. 140. 318-320
  • Kotecha, A, White, ET, Shewry, JM, Garway-Heath, DF. (2005). The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 89. 1572-1575
  • Doyle, A, Lachkar, Y. (2005). Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldmann applanation tonometry over a wide range of central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma. 14. 288-292
  • Kniestedt, C, Lin, S, Choe, J, Bostrom, A, Nee, M, Stamper, RL. (2005). Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relationship to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 123. 1532-1537
  • Schneider, E, Grehn, F. (2006). Intraocular pressure measurement: comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 15. 2-6
  • Kaufmann, C, Bachmann, LM, Thiel, MA. (2004). Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldmann applanation tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 45. 3118-3121
  • Pache, M, Wilmsmeyer, S, Lautebach, S, Funk, J. (2005). Dynamic contour tonometry versus goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Graefes Arch Exp Ophthalmol. 243. 763-767
Fonte de datos: Dialnet