Comparison of rebound tonometry and non-contact airpuff tonometry to Goldmann applanation tonometry
Erdur Karaman, Sevil
Gülkılık, İbrahim Gökhan
MetadataShow full item record
CitationDemirci, G., Erdur Karaman, S., Tanrıverdi, C., Gülkılık, İ. G. ve Özsütçü, M. (2019). Comparison of rebound tonometry and non-contact airpuff tonometry to Goldmann applanation tonometry. Therapeutic Advances in Ophthalmology, 11. http://doi.org/10.1177/2515841419835731
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the intraocular pressure measurements obtained from healthy subjects with the rebound tonometry, non-contact airpuff tonometry, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in different age groups. Methods: A total of 180 eyes of 90 healthy subjects were included in the study. According to the subjects' ages, the eyes were categorized into three groups: group 1 (age: 7-17 years), group 2 (age: 18-40 years), and group 3 (age: 41-75 years). Intraocular pressure was measured on each subject always in the same order: rebound tonometry, non-contact airpuff tonometry, and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Central corneal thickness values were obtained using ultrasonic pachymetry. One-way repeated-measures analysis of variance, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis were used for the statistical assessment. Results: The mean corneal thickness was found to be 604 +/- 13 mu m, 546 +/- 15 mu m, and 547 +/- 15 mu m in group 1, group 2, and group 3, respectively. Non-contact airpuff tonometry was significantly higher than both Goldmann applanation tonometry and rebound tonometry measurements in all groups (p < 0.001, for all). No statistical difference between Goldmann applanation tonometry and rebound tonometry measurements was found in group 1 (p = 0.248), group 2 (p = 0.63), and group 3 (p = 0.126). There was a significant positive correlation in the meaning of intraocular pressure measurements between rebound tonometry and non-contact airpuff tonometry; non-contact airpuff tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry; and Goldmann applanation tonometry and rebound tonometry in all groups. Conclusion: As a result, without need for topical anesthesia, fast measurement and ease-of-use rebound tonometry is a reliable alternative to Goldmann applanation tonometry in different age groups.
SourceTherapeutic Advances in Ophthalmology
The following license files are associated with this item: