Two-position measurement of intraocular pressure by PT100 noncontact tonometry in comparison with Goldmann tonometry

Kelechi C Ogbuehi, John C Chijuka, Uchechukwu L Osuagwu Department of Optometry &amp; Vision Science, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaBackground: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the precision of intraocular pressure measurem...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Ogbuehi KC, Chijuka JC, Osuagwu UL
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Dove Medical Press 2011
Materias:	Ophthalmology RE1-994
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/9f303b3a8eed4206b99b55d65bb9ebc9
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:9f303b3a8eed4206b99b55d65bb9ebc9
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:9f303b3a8eed4206b99b55d65bb9ebc92021-12-02T03:08:53ZTwo-position measurement of intraocular pressure by PT100 noncontact tonometry in comparison with Goldmann tonometry1177-54671177-5483https://doaj.org/article/9f303b3a8eed4206b99b55d65bb9ebc92011-09-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.dovepress.com/two-position-measurement-of-intraocular-pressure-by-pt100-noncontact-t-a8222https://doaj.org/toc/1177-5467https://doaj.org/toc/1177-5483Kelechi C Ogbuehi, John C Chijuka, Uchechukwu L Osuagwu Department of Optometry &amp; Vision Science, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaBackground: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the precision of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by PT100 noncontact tonometry in a handheld and slit lamp-mounted position in comparison with that of Goldmann applanation tonometry in healthy young adults.Methods: Sixty eyes from 60 subjects (30 men and 30 women) aged 22 &plusmn; 1 (range 20&ndash;24) years participated in this study. Triplicate intraocular pressure measurement of a randomly selected eye was obtained by a noncontact tonometer in a handheld and slit lamp-mounted position in a randomized order, with the Goldmann applanation tonometer always performed last. A second measurement session was carried out after one week to assess repeatability.Results: The mean &plusmn; standard deviation of intraocular pressure readings in the first and second session, respectively, with the three techniques were: handheld position, 14.52 &plusmn; 3.28 mmHg and 15.26 &plusmn; 2.11 mmHg; slit lamp-mounted position, 14.01 &plusmn; 2.80 mmHg and 15.16 &plusmn; 2.34 mmHg; and Goldmann applanation tonometer, 14.86 &plusmn; 3.26 mmHg and 15.16 &plusmn; 2.42 mmHg. There were no significant differences (P &gt; 0.05) between the techniques in the intraocular pressure measurements returned (Goldmann applanation tonometer vs handheld and Goldmann applanation tonometer vs slit lamp-mounted). The Goldmann applanation tonometer measured intraocular pressure 0.34 mmHg higher than handheld and 0.85 mmHg higher than slit lamp-mounted in session 1, and in session 2 Goldmann applanation tonometer intraocular pressure measurement was the same as with the slit lamp-mounted method but lower than with the handheld method by 0.11 mmHg. In PT100 handheld vs slit lamp-mounted comparisons, there were no significant differences (P &gt; 0.05) between intraocular pressure measurements returned by both techniques in sessions 1 and 2. Intrasession and intersession repeatability coefficients for Goldmann applanation tonometer intraocular pressure and slit lamp-mounted intraocular pressure were similar, and better in comparison with those for handheld intraocular pressure.Conclusion: The Goldmann applanation tonometer and PT100 noncontact tonometer in both positions studied here are reliable, consistent techniques for measurement of intraocular pressure, and can be used interchangeably for obtaining intraocular pressure values in young normal subjects. Repositioning of the PT100 tonometer from hand-held to slit lamp-mounted improved its precision and reduced variation with respect to the Goldmann applanation tonometer.Keywords: intraocular pressure, Goldmann applanation tonometry, Reichert PT100 noncontact tonometer, handheld, slit lamp-mounted, repeatabilityOgbuehi KCChijuka JCOsuagwu ULDove Medical PressarticleOphthalmologyRE1-994ENClinical Ophthalmology, Vol 2011, Iss default, Pp 1227-1234 (2011)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Ophthalmology RE1-994
spellingShingle	Ophthalmology RE1-994 Ogbuehi KC Chijuka JC Osuagwu UL Two-position measurement of intraocular pressure by PT100 noncontact tonometry in comparison with Goldmann tonometry
description	Kelechi C Ogbuehi, John C Chijuka, Uchechukwu L Osuagwu Department of Optometry &amp; Vision Science, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaBackground: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the precision of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by PT100 noncontact tonometry in a handheld and slit lamp-mounted position in comparison with that of Goldmann applanation tonometry in healthy young adults.Methods: Sixty eyes from 60 subjects (30 men and 30 women) aged 22 &plusmn; 1 (range 20&ndash;24) years participated in this study. Triplicate intraocular pressure measurement of a randomly selected eye was obtained by a noncontact tonometer in a handheld and slit lamp-mounted position in a randomized order, with the Goldmann applanation tonometer always performed last. A second measurement session was carried out after one week to assess repeatability.Results: The mean &plusmn; standard deviation of intraocular pressure readings in the first and second session, respectively, with the three techniques were: handheld position, 14.52 &plusmn; 3.28 mmHg and 15.26 &plusmn; 2.11 mmHg; slit lamp-mounted position, 14.01 &plusmn; 2.80 mmHg and 15.16 &plusmn; 2.34 mmHg; and Goldmann applanation tonometer, 14.86 &plusmn; 3.26 mmHg and 15.16 &plusmn; 2.42 mmHg. There were no significant differences (P &gt; 0.05) between the techniques in the intraocular pressure measurements returned (Goldmann applanation tonometer vs handheld and Goldmann applanation tonometer vs slit lamp-mounted). The Goldmann applanation tonometer measured intraocular pressure 0.34 mmHg higher than handheld and 0.85 mmHg higher than slit lamp-mounted in session 1, and in session 2 Goldmann applanation tonometer intraocular pressure measurement was the same as with the slit lamp-mounted method but lower than with the handheld method by 0.11 mmHg. In PT100 handheld vs slit lamp-mounted comparisons, there were no significant differences (P &gt; 0.05) between intraocular pressure measurements returned by both techniques in sessions 1 and 2. Intrasession and intersession repeatability coefficients for Goldmann applanation tonometer intraocular pressure and slit lamp-mounted intraocular pressure were similar, and better in comparison with those for handheld intraocular pressure.Conclusion: The Goldmann applanation tonometer and PT100 noncontact tonometer in both positions studied here are reliable, consistent techniques for measurement of intraocular pressure, and can be used interchangeably for obtaining intraocular pressure values in young normal subjects. Repositioning of the PT100 tonometer from hand-held to slit lamp-mounted improved its precision and reduced variation with respect to the Goldmann applanation tonometer.Keywords: intraocular pressure, Goldmann applanation tonometry, Reichert PT100 noncontact tonometer, handheld, slit lamp-mounted, repeatability
format	article
author	Ogbuehi KC Chijuka JC Osuagwu UL
author_facet	Ogbuehi KC Chijuka JC Osuagwu UL
author_sort	Ogbuehi KC
title	Two-position measurement of intraocular pressure by PT100 noncontact tonometry in comparison with Goldmann tonometry
title_short	Two-position measurement of intraocular pressure by PT100 noncontact tonometry in comparison with Goldmann tonometry
title_full	Two-position measurement of intraocular pressure by PT100 noncontact tonometry in comparison with Goldmann tonometry
title_fullStr	Two-position measurement of intraocular pressure by PT100 noncontact tonometry in comparison with Goldmann tonometry
title_full_unstemmed	Two-position measurement of intraocular pressure by PT100 noncontact tonometry in comparison with Goldmann tonometry
title_sort	two-position measurement of intraocular pressure by pt100 noncontact tonometry in comparison with goldmann tonometry
publisher	Dove Medical Press
publishDate	2011
url	https://doaj.org/article/9f303b3a8eed4206b99b55d65bb9ebc9
work_keys_str_mv	AT ogbuehikc twopositionmeasurementofintraocularpressurebypt100noncontacttonometryincomparisonwithgoldmanntonometry AT chijukajc twopositionmeasurementofintraocularpressurebypt100noncontacttonometryincomparisonwithgoldmanntonometry AT osuagwuul twopositionmeasurementofintraocularpressurebypt100noncontacttonometryincomparisonwithgoldmanntonometry
_version_	1718401935128657920

Two-position measurement of intraocular pressure by PT100 noncontact tonometry in comparison with Goldmann tonometry

Ejemplares similares