Scientific Online Resource System

Bulgarian Review of Ophthalmology

Comparative analysis of intraocular pressure measured with non-contact air tonometry (Tonopachy NT-530P) and non-contact tonometer with detection of corneal biomechanical response (OCULUS Corvis ST)

Evgeni Neshkinski

Abstract

Introduction:

The measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) is one of the standard tests in performing an ophthalmology examination. These values are among the parameters used to diagnose and monitor one of the commonly seen socially significant diseases—glaucoma. Therefore, accurate measurement with high recurrence and low error rate is crucial for the correct diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of these diseases.

Aim:

The aim of this article is to make a comparative analysis between the results obtained by measuring intraocular pressure, using a popular method with Tonopachy NT 530P non-contact air tonometry and innovative Corvis ST non-contact tonometer with detection of corneal biomechanical response.

Materials and Methods:

The current study presents results from 20 patients (40 eyes), including glaucoma patients (n = 7) and а control group (n = 13). The intraocular pressure and optical pachymetry of all participants were measured with Tonopachy NT-530P non-contact air tonometer and OCULUS Corvis ST non-contact air tonometer. 

Results:

The mean values of IOP with Tonopachy NT-530P are equal to  17.97 +/- 4.04 mmHg mmHg, and with Corvis ST—17.43 +/- 4.86 mmHg. The obtained results show that the uncorrected IOP of the right eye (TOD) difference between the two devices is equal to 0.515 mmHg, with standard deviation SD = 1.5118, p < 0.01. The average difference in the measurement of uncorrected IOP of the left eye (TOS) is equal to 1.9 mmHg, SD = 2.7237, p < 0.01.  For the corrected TOD, the difference in results is 0.545 mmHg, SD = 1.98162 mmHg, p < 0.01, and for the corrected TOS, it is 1.78 mmHg, SD = 2.722668 mmHg, p < 0.01. The results show that in the study group there is a tendency for higher values obtained with the Tonopachy NT530P tonometer compared to Corvis ST. The difference in results is exacerbated by an increase in IOP in patients with abnormally high IOP.

Conclusion:

The non-contact tonometer with detection of biomechanical response of the cornea is another method that helps the modern ophthalmologist. Thanks to the detailed analysis of the cornea, which is done during tonometry, the method could be used for early detection and more effective monitoring and treatment of glaucoma.


Keywords

non-contact tonometer, Corvis ST, corneal biomechanics, innovation, glaucoma

Full Text


References

Weinreb RN, Aung T, Medeiros FA. The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review. JAMA. 2014;311(18):1901-11. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.3192.

Schuster AK, Erb C, Hoffmann EM, Dietlein T, Pfeiffer N. The diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2020;117(13):225-34. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0225.

Allison K, Patel D, Alabi O. Epidemiology of glaucoma: the past, present, and predictions for the future. Cureus. 2020;12(11):e11686. doi: 10.7759/cureus.11686.

Imrie C, Tatham AJ. Glaucoma: the patient's perspective. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(646):e371-3. doi: 10.3399/bjgp16X685165.

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(1):659–65. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-10984.

European Glaucoma Society - 2008 - Terminology and guidelines for glaucoma.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jan 29]. Available from: http://bmec.swbh.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/EGS-Terminology-and-Guidelines-for-Glaucoma-3rd-Edition.pdf

Wang YX, Xu L, Wei WB, Jonas JB. Intraocular pressure and its normal range adjusted for ocular and systemic parameters. The Beijing Eye Study 2011. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0196926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196926.

European Glaucoma Society, editor. Terminology and guidelines for glaucoma. 3rd edition. Savona: Ed. Dogma; 2008.

De Moraes CGV, Prata TS, Liebmann J, Ritch R. Modalities of tonometry and their accuracy with respect to corneal thickness and irregularities. J Optometry. 2008;1(2):43–9.

Khatri A, Thapa M, Kharel M, Sah A, Bhattarai K, Joshi K. Influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on the intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements taken from Goldmann applanation tonometer, Tonopen, and airpuff tonometer. Birat J Health Sci. 2018;3(3):532–6.

Yilmaz I, Altan C, Aygit ED, Alagoz C, Baz O, Ahmet S, et al. Comparison of three methods of tonometry in normal subjects: Goldmann applanation tonometer, non-contact airpuff tonometer, and Tono-Pen XL. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:1069–74. doi: 10.2147/opth.s6391.

Bader J, Havens SJ. Tonometry. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 [cited 2022 Jan 30]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493225/

Halkiadakis I, Tzimis V, Gryparis A, Markopoulos I, Konstadinidou V, Zintzaras E, et al. Evaluation of Corvis ST tonometer with the updated software in glaucoma practice. Int J Ophthalmol. 2022;15(3):438–45. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2022.03.11.

Zlatarova Z, Decheva D. Comparison of the intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness values, measured by Goldmann applanation tonometer, ultrasound pachymetry, and Tonopahy NT-530P. Bulgarian Ophthalmol Rev. 2013; 57(2):18-22. (in Bulgarian).




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14748/bro.v66i2.8539

Refbacks

Font Size


About The Author

Evgeni Neshkinski
Medical University of Varna
Bulgaria

Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Faculty of Medicine;

Specialized Eye Hospital, Varna

|