Castells FR

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 1-14
PDF size: 255.16 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Goldmann Applanation Tonometer is considered the gold standard for the measurement of the intraocular pressure, nevertheless in atypical conditions where its use is not effective it has been necessary the implementation of new techniques of tonometry. The comparison of these new techniques with the standard is objective of dissimilar investigations anywhere in the world. Digital Eyelid tonometer had tendency to undervalue the measurements with respect to the Goldmann tonometry, reason why its single use in combination with other techniques is recommended. Non contact tonometry or pneumotonometry has also vital contemporary ophthalmology for being little invasive and from smaller risk of infection to the patient. Pulsair fluctuated in its measurements to both sides of the average value measured by the Goldmann. Pneumotonometer Reichert R7 tended to the overvaluation of the measurements in comparison to the Goldmann although it has suitable indices of trustworthiness. Pneumotonometer NIDEK NT -4000 proved to be extremely sensitive and highly specific in spite of the necessity, like the rest of the techniques before referred, of the correction of the value by the pachymetry. Rebound tonometer offers the advantage of minimum corneal contact but in the consulted bibliography high values of differences are appreciated between this and the Goldmann. The Dynamic Contour Tonometer and also the Ocular Response Analyzer, spread worldwide, surpass the other ones due to their almost mill dependency of the biomechanics properties of the cornea.

REFERENCES

1. Liane H. Van der Jagt, Nomdo M. J. Three portable tonometers, the TGDc-01, the ICARE and Tonopen XL, compared with each other and with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthal. Physiol. Opt, 2005; (25): 429–435

2. O. E. Babalola, A. V. Kehinde, A. C. Iloegbunam, T. Akinbinu, C. Moghalu, I. Onuoha. A comparison of the Goldmann applanation and non-contact (Keeler Pulsair EasyEye) tonometers and the effect of central corneal thickness in indigenous African eyes. Ophthalmic and Physiology. Opt. 2009; (29): 182-188

3. Andrew K. C. Lam; Chin Hang Lam; Rufina Chan: The validity of a digital eyelid tonometer and its comparison with Goldmann tonometry – a pilot study, Ophthal. Physiol. Opt, 2005; (25): 205-210.

4. Carrim Z.I, Lavy T.E. Goldmann tonometry versus TONOPEN XL for intraocular pressure measurement: an evaluation of the impact on clinical decision making in glaucoma. Ophthalmic and Phisiological Optics. 2009; (29): 648-651

5. Horowitz, G. S., Byles, J., Lee, J. and D’Este, C. Comparison of the Tono-Pen and Goldmann tonometer for measuring intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma. Clin. Experiment. Ophthalmol. 2004; (32): 584–589.

6. Moseley M, J Thompson, J. R,, Deutsch, J, Misson G. et al. Comparison of the Keeler Pulsair 2(XX) non-contact tonometer with Goldmann applanation. Eye 7; 1993: 127-130

7. Jorge J, Gonzalez-Meijome J.M, Queiros A, Fernandes P et al. A comparison of the NCT Reichert R7 with Goldmann applanation tonometry and the Reicherte ocular response analyzer. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011; ( 31): 174–179.

8. Regine F, Scuderi G.L, Cesareo M, Ricci F et al. Validity and limitations of the Nidek NT -4000 non-contact tonometer: a clinical study. Ophthal Physiol, Opt. 2006; (26): 33-39.

9. Fernandes P, Diaz-Rey J.A. Queiros A, Gonzalez-Meijone J.M, Jorge J. Comparison of the ICARE rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population. Ophthalmic and Phisiologic Optics. 2005; (25): 436-440

10. Jorge J, fernandes P, Qyeiros A, Ribeiro P. Garces C, Gonzalez- Meijome J.M.Comparison of the IOPen and Icare rebound tonometers with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population. Ophthalmic and Physiologic Optics. 2010; (30): 108-112

11. Lopez Caballero C, Contreras I, Muñoz – Negrete FJ, Rebolleda G et al. Tonometria de rebote en la práctica clínica. Comparación con la tonometría de aplanación. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2007; (82): 273-278

12. Diaz-Llopis M, Garcia-Delpech S, Udaondo P. Rebound Tonometry vs Goldmann vs. Pneumotonometer. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2007; (82): 607-608.

13. Saenz-Frances F, Garcia-catalan M, Jerez-Fidalgo M, Fernandez-Vidal J.M et al. Concordancia entre la tonometría de aplanación Goldmann y la tonometría de contorno dinamico: efectos de la morfometria corneal. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2011; 86(9): 287-291.

14. Herdener S, Hafizovic D, Pache M, Lautebach S et al. Is the PASCAL Tonometer suitable for measuring intraocular pressure in clinical routine? Long and short term reproducibility of dynamic contour tonometry. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2008; (18): 39–43.

15. Oncel B, Dinc U, Orge F & Yalvac B. Comparison of IOP measurement by ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour, Goldmann applanation, and noncontact tonometry. Eur J Ophthalmol 2009; (19): 936–941.

16. Heras-Mulero H, Moreno-Montañes J, Sadaba L.M, Mendiluce Martin L. Comparacion del tonómetro Pascal con el Neumotonómetro y el tonómetro Goldmann. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2007; (82): 337-342.

17. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, García-Feijoo J, Fernández-Vidal A et al. Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; (47): 4410–4414.

18. Jorge M. J, González – Meijone J. M. Tonometría no invasiva. Precisión, Ventajas y Limitaciones (II). Gaceta Óptica; 433, enero 2009.

19. Ceruti P, Morbio R, Marraffa M, Marchini G. Comparisonof Goldmann applanation Tonometry and dynamic contour Tonometry in healthy and glaucomatous eyes. Eye. 2009; (23): 262–9.

20. Babalola OE, Kehinde AV, Iloegbunam AC et al. A comparison of the Goldmann applanation and non-contact (Keeler Pulsair EasyEye) tonometers and the effect of central corneal thickness in indigenous African eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2009; (29): 182–188.

21. Kotecha, A., White, E. T., Shewry, J. M. and Garway- Heath, D. F. The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Br. J. Ophthalmol; 2005; (89): 1572–1575.

22. Theodossiades J, Myint J, Murdoch I.E, Edgar D. F, Lawrenson J. G. Does optometrists’ self-reported practice in glaucoma detection predict actual practice as determined by standardised patients? Ophthalmic and Phisiologic optics. 2012, (32): 234-241.

23. Milla E, Duch S, Buchacra O, Masuet C. Poor agreement between Goldmann and Pascal tonometry in eyes with extreme pachymetry. Eye. 2009; (23): 536–542.

24. Castellvi J. M, Parera M. A, Loscos A. J. Consideraciones sobre los principios físicos de la tonometría de aplanación. Gaceta öptica; 2009: 442, noviembre 2009

25. Oncel B, Dinc U, Orge F & Yalvac B. Comparison of IOP measurement by ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour, Goldmann applanation, and noncontact tonometry. Eur J Ophthalmol 2009; (19): 936–941.

26. Ogbuehi. K, Mucke. S, Osuagwu U. Influence of central corneal thickness on measured intraocular pressure differentials: Nidek RKT – 7700, Topcon CT-80 NCTs and Goldmann Tonometer. Ophtalmic Physiol Opt, 2012; (32), 547-555.

27. Mangouritsas G, Mourtzoukos S, Mantzounis A & Alexopoulos L. Comparison of Goldmann and Pascal Tonometry in relation to corneal hysteresis and central corneal thickness in nonglaucomatous eyes. Clin Ophthalmol 2011; (5): 1071–1077.

28. Schiano Lomoriello D, Lombardo M, Tranchina L, Oddone F, Serrao S & Ducoli P. 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.

29. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Jimenez-Santos M, Saenz-Frances F et al. Performance of the rebound, noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers in routine clinical practice. Acta Ophthalmol 2011; 89: 676–680.