The Experts below are selected from a list of 4767 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Julian Garciafeijoo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the icare pro rebound Tonometer versus the hand held applanation Tonometer in congenital glaucoma
Journal of Glaucoma, 2016Co-Authors: Lara Borrego Sanz, Laura Moralesfernandez, Jose Martinez M Delacasa, F Saenzfrances, Manuel Fuentes, Julian GarciafeijooAbstract:PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using the new rebound Tonometer Icare-Pro and the hand-held version of Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (Perkins Tonometer) in children with primary congenital glaucoma (PCG) under general anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using both Tonometers, 3 IOP measurements were prospectively determined in 1 single session. Icare-Pro was always used first, and then Perkins. All measurements were recruited in 50 eyes of 50 patients with PCG under general anesthesia. Central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, and axial length were also measured in each patient. Data were compared by determining interclass correlation coefficient for each Tonometer and representing the differences detected as Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Good linear correlation was observed between IOP readings obtained using the Perkins and Icare-Pro (r=0.75, P<0.001), although the Icare-Pro readings were slightly higher (mean IOP difference 0.42 ± 3.69 mm Hg, P=0.41). A Bland-Altman plot revealed the 95% limits of agreement between the 2 methods: 7.7 to -6.8 mm Hg (slope=0.109, P=0.32). Intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.84) showing good agreement. For both Tonometers, no correlation was detected between IOP measurements and central corneal thickness and axial length, but positive relation was found with anterior chamber depth. CONCLUSIONS: IOP measurements determined using the new Icare-Pro rebound Tonometer showed good correlation with those obtained using the hand-held Perkins applanation Tonometer in children with PCG under general anesthesia.
-
clinical evaluation of the new rebound Tonometers icare pro and icare one compared with the goldmann Tonometer
Journal of Glaucoma, 2015Co-Authors: Javier Morenomontanes, Laura Moralesfernandez, J M Martinezdelacasa, Alfonso L Sabater, Cristina Saenz, Julian GarciafeijooAbstract:PURPOSE: To compare the participant-obtained intraocular pressures (IOPs) using Icare ONE and the clinician-obtained values using Icare PRO, both rebound Tonometers, with Goldmann tonometry (GAT) values and analyze the ease of use of Icare ONE. METHODS: One hundred fifty participants were included (60 normal controls, 90 patients with glaucoma/ocular hypertension). The participants measured the IOP 3 times using Icare ONE; a clinician measured the IOP once using Icare PRO. The instruments were used randomly. Clinical data were evaluated to analyze the difficulty of the technique, the effect on the results, and the ease of use of Icare ONE. RESULTS: The mean IOPs with GAT, Icare ONE, and Icare PRO were 16.6±4.43, 17.5±5.42, and 16.6±4.77 mm Hg, respectively. The participant-measured IOP values were within +3 mm Hg of the GAT values in 67.1% of eyes with Icare ONE and in 79.6% with Icare PRO. The limits of agreement were higher with Icare ONE compared with Icare PRO. IOP value errors were found with Icare ONE in eyes with low and high GAT-IOP. The areas under the curve to detect IOPs of 21 mm Hg or higher (GAT) exceeded 0.80 with both Tonometers. Young participants reported better ease of use with Icare ONE. No other factors were related to the results. CONCLUSIONS: Icare ONE may be useful for patients monitoring their IOP values; most individuals can use the device after a short training session. Icare PRO had better results compared with Icare ONE in all IOP ranges.
-
comparison of rebound Tonometer and goldmann handheld applanation Tonometer in congenital glaucoma
Journal of Glaucoma, 2009Co-Authors: J M Martinezdelacasa, Gianmarco Vizzeri, F Saenzfrances, Julian Garciafeijoo, A Fernandezvidal, Carmen Mendezhernandez, Julian GarciasanchezAbstract:PURPOSE To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using the rebound Tonometer (RBT) and the handheld Goldmann applanation Tonometer (Perkins) in children with congenital glaucoma. METHODS Using both Tonometers, the IOP was prospectively determined in 68 eyes of 68 patients with congenital glaucoma aged 3 to 13 years. Corneal curvature, central corneal thickness (CCT), and axial length were also measured in each patient. The ease of the use of each Tonometer was scored using a visual analog scale. RESULTS IOP readings obtained using the RBT and Perkins Tonometer showed good correlation (r=0.869, P<0.001) although RBT readings were consistently higher (mean difference: 3.1 +/-4.0 mm Hg). According to the Bland-Altman plot, the 95% limits of agreement between the 2 methods were -4.8 to 10.9 mm Hg (slope=0.589, P<0.001). When estimating CCT, the 2 Tonometers behaved similarly and correlation was observed between IOP measurements and CCT, with higher IOPs obtained as the CCT increased. In contrast, no correlation was detected between corneal curvature or axial length and the IOPs recorded using either Tonometer. Ease of use scores awarded by the examiner was higher for the RBT. CONCLUSIONS The RBT overestimates the IOP compared with the Perkins Tonometer in patients with congenital glaucoma. Differences in readings between the 2 Tonometers become larger as the CCT increases.
-
effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour rebound and goldmann tonometry
Ophthalmology, 2007Co-Authors: J M Martinezdelacasa, Julian Garciafeijoo, A Fernandezvidal, E Vico, Jose Manuel Benitez Del Castillo, Mohamed Wasfi, J GarciasanchezAbstract:Purpose To identify correlations among intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using the rebound Tonometer (RBT), the dynamic contour Tonometer (DCT), and the Goldmann applanation Tonometer (GAT). The effects of corneal thickness on the measures obtained using each of the 3 Tonometers also were examined. Design Cross-sectional study. Participants One hundred forty-six eyes of 90 patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Methods Intraocular pressure measurements were obtained in all patients using RBT, DCT, and GAT. Central corneal thickness was determined by ultrasound pachymetry. Patients were divided randomly into 6 groups to vary the order in which the Tonometers were used. All IOP measurements were made by the same examiner, who was masked to the readings obtained. Main Outcome Measures Intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness. Results There was good correlation between IOP readings obtained using the RBT and GAT ( r = 0.864; P r = 0.871; P r = 0.804; P P = 0.218), those between DCT and GAT were −0.7 to 9.5 mmHg (slope = 0.016; P = 0.717), and those between RBT and DCT were −3.1 to 9.8 mmHg (slope = −0.041; P = 0.457). Using RBT, the point that best discriminated between patients with an IOP 21 mmHg or less and more than 21 mmHg as determined by GAT was >23.3 mmHg (sensitivity, 66.7%; specificity, 92.1%); using DCT, this point was >22.7 mmHg (sensitivity, 95.6%; specificity, 71.3%). In terms of pachymetry, GAT and RBT behaved similarly. Using these instruments, differences of approximately 3 mmHg were detected between the groups of patients with the thinnest ( 565 μm) corneas, whereas a significantly lower difference (0.5 mmHg) was noted for the DCT. Conclusions Measurements obtained both with the RBT and DCT show excellent correlation with those provided by applanation tonometry. Both Tonometers tend to overestimate the IOP measured with the GAT, particularly the DCT. This last Tonometer seems to be less affected by the corneal thickness.
Yoshiaki Kiuchi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Evaluation of rebound Tonometer iCare IC200 as compared with IcarePRO and Goldmann applanation Tonometer in patients with glaucoma
'Springer Science and Business Media LLC', 2021Co-Authors: Shunsuke Nakakura, Ryo Asaoka, Satomi Oogi, Miku Shiraishi, Etsuko Terao, Yuki Nagata, Yasuko Fukuma, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Abstract Background This study investigated the agreement between a new rebound Tonometer, IC200, and IcarePRO and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). Methods This was a prospective cross-sectional study. We measured the intraocular pressure (IOP) in 145 eyes of 145 glaucoma patients in the sitting position using GAT, IcarePRO, and IC200. IcarePRO and IC200 measurements were also obtained in the supine position. IC200 measurement was performed using two modes: single six (IC200-single) and automatic (IC200-continuous) six-measurements mode. Results All Tonometers provided high reproducibility in both positions (all intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.90), although it was highest with GAT, followed by IC200-continuous and IC200-single and then IcarePRO. In the sitting position, the mean (± SD) IOPs of GAT, IcarePRO, IC200-single, and IC200-continuous were 14.5 ± 2.9 mmHg, 13.3 ± 3.2 mmHg, 11.6 ± 3.2 mmHg, and 11.5 ± 3.2 mmHg, respectively. IOPs measured with IcarePRO or IC200 were significantly lower than those with GAT, particularly in patients with low IOP. IOPs measured with all Tonometers were significantly elevated in the supine position as compared with the sitting position, but this difference was significantly greater with IC200-single and IC200-continuous compared with IcarePRO. IOP elevation was significant in eyes without bleb versus those with bleb, but this finding was not observed when IOP was measured with IcarePRO. The IOPs of the single and continuous modes of IC200 were interchangeable in both positions. Conclusions GAT, IcarePRO, and IC200 had sufficiently high reproducibility, but measurements with IcarePRO may not be accurate in the supine position. Elevation of IOP in the supine position, especially in eyes with bleb, was more sensitively captured with IC200 than with IcarePRO. Trial registration Japan Clinical Trials Register, No. UMIN000039982
-
Comparison of the Intraocular Pressure Measured Using the New Rebound Tonometer Icare ic100 and Icare TA01i or Goldmann Applanation Tonometer.
Journal of glaucoma, 2019Co-Authors: Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Etsuko Mori, Yuki Fujio, Yasuko Fujisawa, Kanae Matsuya, Yui Kobayashi, Ryo Asaoka, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Purpose:We evaluated the agreement between the intraocular pressure (IOP) values of new rebound Tonometer, Icare ic100, and Icare TA01i or Goldmann applanation Tonometer (GAT).Methods:We studied one eye each of 106 subjects (57 with primary open-angle glaucoma, 49 healthy subjects). IOP was randomly
-
agreement among goldmann applanation Tonometer icare and icare pro rebound Tonometers non contact Tonometer and tonopen xl in healthy elderly subjects
International Ophthalmology, 2018Co-Authors: Yoshitake Kato, Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Naoko Matsuo, Kayo Yoshitomi, Marina Handa, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:To evaluate the inter-device agreement among the Goldmann applanation Tonometer (GAT), iCare and Icare PRO rebound Tonometers, non-contact Tonometer (NCT), and Tonopen XL Tonometer. Sixty healthy elderly subjects were enrolled. The intraocular pressure (IOP) in each subject’s right eye was measured thrice using each of the five Tonometers. Intra-device agreement was evaluated by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Inter-device agreement was evaluated by ICC and Bland–Altman analyses. ICCs for intra-device agreement for each Tonometer were >0.8. IOP as measured by iCare (mean ± SD, 11.6 ± 2.5 mmHg) was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than that measured by GAT (14.0 ± 2.8 mmHg), NCT (13.6 ± 2.5 mmHg), Tonopen XL (13.7 ± 4.1 mmHg), and Icare PRO (12.6 ± 2.2 mmHg; Bonferroni test). There was no significant difference in mean IOP among GAT, NCT, and Tonopen XL. Regarding inter-device agreement, ICC was lower between Tonopen XL and other Tonometers (all ICCs < 0.4). However, ICCs of GAT, iCare, Icare PRO, and NCT showed good agreement (0.576–0.700). The Bland–Altman analysis revealed that the width of the 95% limits of agreement was larger between the Tonopen XL and the other Tonometers ranged from 14.94 to 16.47 mmHg. Among the other Tonometers, however, the widths of 95% limits of agreement ranged from 7.91 to 9.24 mmHg. There was good inter-device agreement among GAT, rebound Tonometers, and NCT. Tonopen XL shows the worst agreement with the other Tonometers; therefore, we should pay attention to its’ respective IOP. Japan Clinical Trials Register; number: UMIN000011544.
-
A comparison of mean IOP of three measurements using five methods.
2017Co-Authors: Yoshitaka Nakao, Yoshiaki Kiuchi, Satoshi OkimotoAbstract:There were mean IOP of three measurements by each method on each patient (n = 90). The IOP values are plotted as the mean ± standard deviation. IOP, intraocular pressure; CST-IOP, IOP using the Corvis ST; CST-IOPpachy, corrected CST-IOP; GAT-IOP, IOP using the Goldmann applanation Tonometer; 7CR-IOPg, Goldmann-correlated IOP using the 7CR Tonometer; 7CR-IOPcc, corneal-compensated IOP using the 7CR Tonometer.
-
Bland-Altman plots for inter-method differences.
2017Co-Authors: Yoshitaka Nakao, Yoshiaki Kiuchi, Satoshi OkimotoAbstract:A, The differences between the CST-IOP and GAT-IOP. B, The difference between the CST-IOPpachy and GAT-IOP. C, The difference between the 7CR-IOPg and GAT-IOP. D, The difference between the 7CR-IOPcc and GAT-IOP. The mean values and 95% LOA are indicated by bold lines and solid lines, respectively. IOP, intraocular pressure; CST-IOP, IOP using the Corvis ST; CST-IOPpachy, corrected CST-IOP; GAT-IOP, IOP using the Goldmann applanation Tonometer; 7CR-IOPg, Goldmann-correlated IOP using the 7CR Tonometer; 7CR-IOPcc, corneal-compensated IOP using the 7CR Tonometer; CI, confidence interval; LOA, limits of agreement.
Shunsuke Nakakura - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Evaluation of rebound Tonometer iCare IC200 as compared with IcarePRO and Goldmann applanation Tonometer in patients with glaucoma
'Springer Science and Business Media LLC', 2021Co-Authors: Shunsuke Nakakura, Ryo Asaoka, Satomi Oogi, Miku Shiraishi, Etsuko Terao, Yuki Nagata, Yasuko Fukuma, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Abstract Background This study investigated the agreement between a new rebound Tonometer, IC200, and IcarePRO and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). Methods This was a prospective cross-sectional study. We measured the intraocular pressure (IOP) in 145 eyes of 145 glaucoma patients in the sitting position using GAT, IcarePRO, and IC200. IcarePRO and IC200 measurements were also obtained in the supine position. IC200 measurement was performed using two modes: single six (IC200-single) and automatic (IC200-continuous) six-measurements mode. Results All Tonometers provided high reproducibility in both positions (all intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.90), although it was highest with GAT, followed by IC200-continuous and IC200-single and then IcarePRO. In the sitting position, the mean (± SD) IOPs of GAT, IcarePRO, IC200-single, and IC200-continuous were 14.5 ± 2.9 mmHg, 13.3 ± 3.2 mmHg, 11.6 ± 3.2 mmHg, and 11.5 ± 3.2 mmHg, respectively. IOPs measured with IcarePRO or IC200 were significantly lower than those with GAT, particularly in patients with low IOP. IOPs measured with all Tonometers were significantly elevated in the supine position as compared with the sitting position, but this difference was significantly greater with IC200-single and IC200-continuous compared with IcarePRO. IOP elevation was significant in eyes without bleb versus those with bleb, but this finding was not observed when IOP was measured with IcarePRO. The IOPs of the single and continuous modes of IC200 were interchangeable in both positions. Conclusions GAT, IcarePRO, and IC200 had sufficiently high reproducibility, but measurements with IcarePRO may not be accurate in the supine position. Elevation of IOP in the supine position, especially in eyes with bleb, was more sensitively captured with IC200 than with IcarePRO. Trial registration Japan Clinical Trials Register, No. UMIN000039982
-
effect of manual upper eyelid elevation on intraocular pressure measurement by four different Tonometers
Optometry and Vision Science, 2020Co-Authors: Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Etsuko Mori, Yuki Fujio, Yasuko Fujisawa, Kanae Matsuya, Yui Kobayashi, Satomi Oogi, Miku Shiraishi, Ryo AsaokaAbstract:Significance This study is the first to show that the manual upper eyelid elevation (manual UEE) that is commonly used to prevent disruption of the IOP measurement due to blinking or upper eyelid contact with the tip of the Tonometer does not affect the IOP values. Purpose We investigated whether manual UEE affects the IOP readings using three rebound Tonometers (Icare TA01i, Icare PRO, and Icare ic100) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). Methods One eye was measured for 101 patients (56 eyes of primary open-angle glaucoma patients and 45 healthy subjects). The IOPs were measured without and with manual UEE. Each IOP was measured twice; the measurement order using the Tonometers was randomly selected. In addition, palpebral fissure height (distance between the upper and lower eyelids) was measured. Results The IOPs without manual UEE were 12.1 ± 2.9, 13.3 ± 2.7, 11.7 ± 2.9, and 16.0 ± 3.2 mmHg (Icare TA01i, Icare PRO, Icare ic100, and GAT), and those with manual UEE were 12.3 ± 3.0, 13.3 ± 2.8, 11.7 ± 2.9, and 16.0 ± 3.3, respectively. No significant difference was found between the IOP without and with manual UEE (IOP difference; all, P > .50; paired t test). Multiple linear regression analyses revealed that palpebral fissure height did not affect IOP difference for any of the Tonometers. Conclusions Simple manual UEE when measuring the IOP has little effect on the IOP obtained using all current rebound Tonometers and GAT.
-
Comparison of the Intraocular Pressure Measured Using the New Rebound Tonometer Icare ic100 and Icare TA01i or Goldmann Applanation Tonometer.
Journal of glaucoma, 2019Co-Authors: Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Etsuko Mori, Yuki Fujio, Yasuko Fujisawa, Kanae Matsuya, Yui Kobayashi, Ryo Asaoka, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Purpose:We evaluated the agreement between the intraocular pressure (IOP) values of new rebound Tonometer, Icare ic100, and Icare TA01i or Goldmann applanation Tonometer (GAT).Methods:We studied one eye each of 106 subjects (57 with primary open-angle glaucoma, 49 healthy subjects). IOP was randomly
-
agreement among goldmann applanation Tonometer icare and icare pro rebound Tonometers non contact Tonometer and tonopen xl in healthy elderly subjects
International Ophthalmology, 2018Co-Authors: Yoshitake Kato, Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Naoko Matsuo, Kayo Yoshitomi, Marina Handa, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:To evaluate the inter-device agreement among the Goldmann applanation Tonometer (GAT), iCare and Icare PRO rebound Tonometers, non-contact Tonometer (NCT), and Tonopen XL Tonometer. Sixty healthy elderly subjects were enrolled. The intraocular pressure (IOP) in each subject’s right eye was measured thrice using each of the five Tonometers. Intra-device agreement was evaluated by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Inter-device agreement was evaluated by ICC and Bland–Altman analyses. ICCs for intra-device agreement for each Tonometer were >0.8. IOP as measured by iCare (mean ± SD, 11.6 ± 2.5 mmHg) was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than that measured by GAT (14.0 ± 2.8 mmHg), NCT (13.6 ± 2.5 mmHg), Tonopen XL (13.7 ± 4.1 mmHg), and Icare PRO (12.6 ± 2.2 mmHg; Bonferroni test). There was no significant difference in mean IOP among GAT, NCT, and Tonopen XL. Regarding inter-device agreement, ICC was lower between Tonopen XL and other Tonometers (all ICCs < 0.4). However, ICCs of GAT, iCare, Icare PRO, and NCT showed good agreement (0.576–0.700). The Bland–Altman analysis revealed that the width of the 95% limits of agreement was larger between the Tonopen XL and the other Tonometers ranged from 14.94 to 16.47 mmHg. Among the other Tonometers, however, the widths of 95% limits of agreement ranged from 7.91 to 9.24 mmHg. There was good inter-device agreement among GAT, rebound Tonometers, and NCT. Tonopen XL shows the worst agreement with the other Tonometers; therefore, we should pay attention to its’ respective IOP. Japan Clinical Trials Register; number: UMIN000011544.
-
a pilot evaluation assessing the ease of use and accuracy of the new self home Tonometer icarehome in healthy young subjects
Journal of Glaucoma, 2016Co-Authors: Asuka Noguchi, Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Etsuko Mori, Yuki Fujio, Yasuko Fukuma, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Purpose:We investigated the ease of use and accuracy of a new self/home-Tonometer (IcareHOME) versus Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and the Icare Tonometer (Icare) by measuring the diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP).Patients and Methods:The right eyes of 43 healthy young subjects were studied.
J M Martinezdelacasa - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
clinical evaluation of the new rebound Tonometers icare pro and icare one compared with the goldmann Tonometer
Journal of Glaucoma, 2015Co-Authors: Javier Morenomontanes, Laura Moralesfernandez, J M Martinezdelacasa, Alfonso L Sabater, Cristina Saenz, Julian GarciafeijooAbstract:PURPOSE: To compare the participant-obtained intraocular pressures (IOPs) using Icare ONE and the clinician-obtained values using Icare PRO, both rebound Tonometers, with Goldmann tonometry (GAT) values and analyze the ease of use of Icare ONE. METHODS: One hundred fifty participants were included (60 normal controls, 90 patients with glaucoma/ocular hypertension). The participants measured the IOP 3 times using Icare ONE; a clinician measured the IOP once using Icare PRO. The instruments were used randomly. Clinical data were evaluated to analyze the difficulty of the technique, the effect on the results, and the ease of use of Icare ONE. RESULTS: The mean IOPs with GAT, Icare ONE, and Icare PRO were 16.6±4.43, 17.5±5.42, and 16.6±4.77 mm Hg, respectively. The participant-measured IOP values were within +3 mm Hg of the GAT values in 67.1% of eyes with Icare ONE and in 79.6% with Icare PRO. The limits of agreement were higher with Icare ONE compared with Icare PRO. IOP value errors were found with Icare ONE in eyes with low and high GAT-IOP. The areas under the curve to detect IOPs of 21 mm Hg or higher (GAT) exceeded 0.80 with both Tonometers. Young participants reported better ease of use with Icare ONE. No other factors were related to the results. CONCLUSIONS: Icare ONE may be useful for patients monitoring their IOP values; most individuals can use the device after a short training session. Icare PRO had better results compared with Icare ONE in all IOP ranges.
-
comparison of rebound Tonometer and goldmann handheld applanation Tonometer in congenital glaucoma
Journal of Glaucoma, 2009Co-Authors: J M Martinezdelacasa, Gianmarco Vizzeri, F Saenzfrances, Julian Garciafeijoo, A Fernandezvidal, Carmen Mendezhernandez, Julian GarciasanchezAbstract:PURPOSE To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using the rebound Tonometer (RBT) and the handheld Goldmann applanation Tonometer (Perkins) in children with congenital glaucoma. METHODS Using both Tonometers, the IOP was prospectively determined in 68 eyes of 68 patients with congenital glaucoma aged 3 to 13 years. Corneal curvature, central corneal thickness (CCT), and axial length were also measured in each patient. The ease of the use of each Tonometer was scored using a visual analog scale. RESULTS IOP readings obtained using the RBT and Perkins Tonometer showed good correlation (r=0.869, P<0.001) although RBT readings were consistently higher (mean difference: 3.1 +/-4.0 mm Hg). According to the Bland-Altman plot, the 95% limits of agreement between the 2 methods were -4.8 to 10.9 mm Hg (slope=0.589, P<0.001). When estimating CCT, the 2 Tonometers behaved similarly and correlation was observed between IOP measurements and CCT, with higher IOPs obtained as the CCT increased. In contrast, no correlation was detected between corneal curvature or axial length and the IOPs recorded using either Tonometer. Ease of use scores awarded by the examiner was higher for the RBT. CONCLUSIONS The RBT overestimates the IOP compared with the Perkins Tonometer in patients with congenital glaucoma. Differences in readings between the 2 Tonometers become larger as the CCT increases.
-
effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour rebound and goldmann tonometry
Ophthalmology, 2007Co-Authors: J M Martinezdelacasa, Julian Garciafeijoo, A Fernandezvidal, E Vico, Jose Manuel Benitez Del Castillo, Mohamed Wasfi, J GarciasanchezAbstract:Purpose To identify correlations among intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using the rebound Tonometer (RBT), the dynamic contour Tonometer (DCT), and the Goldmann applanation Tonometer (GAT). The effects of corneal thickness on the measures obtained using each of the 3 Tonometers also were examined. Design Cross-sectional study. Participants One hundred forty-six eyes of 90 patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Methods Intraocular pressure measurements were obtained in all patients using RBT, DCT, and GAT. Central corneal thickness was determined by ultrasound pachymetry. Patients were divided randomly into 6 groups to vary the order in which the Tonometers were used. All IOP measurements were made by the same examiner, who was masked to the readings obtained. Main Outcome Measures Intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness. Results There was good correlation between IOP readings obtained using the RBT and GAT ( r = 0.864; P r = 0.871; P r = 0.804; P P = 0.218), those between DCT and GAT were −0.7 to 9.5 mmHg (slope = 0.016; P = 0.717), and those between RBT and DCT were −3.1 to 9.8 mmHg (slope = −0.041; P = 0.457). Using RBT, the point that best discriminated between patients with an IOP 21 mmHg or less and more than 21 mmHg as determined by GAT was >23.3 mmHg (sensitivity, 66.7%; specificity, 92.1%); using DCT, this point was >22.7 mmHg (sensitivity, 95.6%; specificity, 71.3%). In terms of pachymetry, GAT and RBT behaved similarly. Using these instruments, differences of approximately 3 mmHg were detected between the groups of patients with the thinnest ( 565 μm) corneas, whereas a significantly lower difference (0.5 mmHg) was noted for the DCT. Conclusions Measurements obtained both with the RBT and DCT show excellent correlation with those provided by applanation tonometry. Both Tonometers tend to overestimate the IOP measured with the GAT, particularly the DCT. This last Tonometer seems to be less affected by the corneal thickness.
Hitoshi Tabuchi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effect of manual upper eyelid elevation on intraocular pressure measurement by four different Tonometers
Optometry and Vision Science, 2020Co-Authors: Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Etsuko Mori, Yuki Fujio, Yasuko Fujisawa, Kanae Matsuya, Yui Kobayashi, Satomi Oogi, Miku Shiraishi, Ryo AsaokaAbstract:Significance This study is the first to show that the manual upper eyelid elevation (manual UEE) that is commonly used to prevent disruption of the IOP measurement due to blinking or upper eyelid contact with the tip of the Tonometer does not affect the IOP values. Purpose We investigated whether manual UEE affects the IOP readings using three rebound Tonometers (Icare TA01i, Icare PRO, and Icare ic100) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). Methods One eye was measured for 101 patients (56 eyes of primary open-angle glaucoma patients and 45 healthy subjects). The IOPs were measured without and with manual UEE. Each IOP was measured twice; the measurement order using the Tonometers was randomly selected. In addition, palpebral fissure height (distance between the upper and lower eyelids) was measured. Results The IOPs without manual UEE were 12.1 ± 2.9, 13.3 ± 2.7, 11.7 ± 2.9, and 16.0 ± 3.2 mmHg (Icare TA01i, Icare PRO, Icare ic100, and GAT), and those with manual UEE were 12.3 ± 3.0, 13.3 ± 2.8, 11.7 ± 2.9, and 16.0 ± 3.3, respectively. No significant difference was found between the IOP without and with manual UEE (IOP difference; all, P > .50; paired t test). Multiple linear regression analyses revealed that palpebral fissure height did not affect IOP difference for any of the Tonometers. Conclusions Simple manual UEE when measuring the IOP has little effect on the IOP obtained using all current rebound Tonometers and GAT.
-
Comparison of the Intraocular Pressure Measured Using the New Rebound Tonometer Icare ic100 and Icare TA01i or Goldmann Applanation Tonometer.
Journal of glaucoma, 2019Co-Authors: Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Etsuko Mori, Yuki Fujio, Yasuko Fujisawa, Kanae Matsuya, Yui Kobayashi, Ryo Asaoka, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Purpose:We evaluated the agreement between the intraocular pressure (IOP) values of new rebound Tonometer, Icare ic100, and Icare TA01i or Goldmann applanation Tonometer (GAT).Methods:We studied one eye each of 106 subjects (57 with primary open-angle glaucoma, 49 healthy subjects). IOP was randomly
-
agreement among goldmann applanation Tonometer icare and icare pro rebound Tonometers non contact Tonometer and tonopen xl in healthy elderly subjects
International Ophthalmology, 2018Co-Authors: Yoshitake Kato, Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Naoko Matsuo, Kayo Yoshitomi, Marina Handa, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:To evaluate the inter-device agreement among the Goldmann applanation Tonometer (GAT), iCare and Icare PRO rebound Tonometers, non-contact Tonometer (NCT), and Tonopen XL Tonometer. Sixty healthy elderly subjects were enrolled. The intraocular pressure (IOP) in each subject’s right eye was measured thrice using each of the five Tonometers. Intra-device agreement was evaluated by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Inter-device agreement was evaluated by ICC and Bland–Altman analyses. ICCs for intra-device agreement for each Tonometer were >0.8. IOP as measured by iCare (mean ± SD, 11.6 ± 2.5 mmHg) was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than that measured by GAT (14.0 ± 2.8 mmHg), NCT (13.6 ± 2.5 mmHg), Tonopen XL (13.7 ± 4.1 mmHg), and Icare PRO (12.6 ± 2.2 mmHg; Bonferroni test). There was no significant difference in mean IOP among GAT, NCT, and Tonopen XL. Regarding inter-device agreement, ICC was lower between Tonopen XL and other Tonometers (all ICCs < 0.4). However, ICCs of GAT, iCare, Icare PRO, and NCT showed good agreement (0.576–0.700). The Bland–Altman analysis revealed that the width of the 95% limits of agreement was larger between the Tonopen XL and the other Tonometers ranged from 14.94 to 16.47 mmHg. Among the other Tonometers, however, the widths of 95% limits of agreement ranged from 7.91 to 9.24 mmHg. There was good inter-device agreement among GAT, rebound Tonometers, and NCT. Tonopen XL shows the worst agreement with the other Tonometers; therefore, we should pay attention to its’ respective IOP. Japan Clinical Trials Register; number: UMIN000011544.
-
a pilot evaluation assessing the ease of use and accuracy of the new self home Tonometer icarehome in healthy young subjects
Journal of Glaucoma, 2016Co-Authors: Asuka Noguchi, Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Etsuko Mori, Yuki Fujio, Yasuko Fukuma, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Purpose:We investigated the ease of use and accuracy of a new self/home-Tonometer (IcareHOME) versus Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and the Icare Tonometer (Icare) by measuring the diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP).Patients and Methods:The right eyes of 43 healthy young subjects were studied.
-
intradevice and interdevice agreement between a rebound Tonometer icare pro and the tonopen xl and kowa hand held applanation Tonometer when used in the sitting and supine position
Journal of Glaucoma, 2015Co-Authors: Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Etsuko Mori, Minami Yamamoto, Yuuri Tsushima, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Purpose: The aim of the study was to investigate the agreement between a new portable Tonometer, Icare PRO, and the Tonopen XL and Kowa hand-held applanation Tonometers (HAT). Methods: The right eyes of 127 healthy subjects were enrolled. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured in both sitting and supine positions using the Icare PRO, Tonopen XL, and Kowa HAT Tonometers. The repeatability of the IOP measurements was evaluated by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients. Between-method agreements of Tonometer measurements were evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. Results: Intradevice agreement: The intraclass correlation coefficients (sitting, supine) of Icare PRO, Tonopen XL, and Kowa HAT were (0.863, 0.656), (0.845, 0.819), and (0.957, 0.956), respectively. Results: Interdevice agreement: The Bland-Altman analysis revealed that, in the sitting position, the mean differences between Icare PRO and Tonopen XL, and between Icare PRO and Kowa HAT were −0.43 and 0.43 mm Hg, respectively (95% limits of agreement: −6.24 to 5.34 mm Hg, −4.04 to 4.90 mm Hg). In the supine position, the corresponding mean differences were −0.88 and 0.14 mm Hg (95% limits of agreement: −5.66 to 3.91 mm Hg, −4.06 to 4.33 mm Hg). IOP differences between Icare PRO and the other Tonometers were unaffected by central corneal thickness. Conclusions: The repeatability of Icare PRO was slightly lower in the supine position than in the sitting position. Although Icare PRO underestimated IOP values in eyes with higher IOP when compared with Tonopen XL and Kowa HAT in both positions, we observed good interdevice agreement between Icare PRO and both Tonopen XL and Kowa HAT.
