2019 - 3 Issue

Original article

The Influence of the Cornea of Intraocular Pressure Measurement by ICARE PRO and ORA

František Pluháček ORCID
Andrea Unzeitigová – Klára Marešová ORCID – Jan Rybář

Full Text links

DOI: 10.31348/2019/3/1

Published in Czech and Slovak Ophtalmology: 2019 - 3

Published on website: 19.10.2019

Keywords: intraocular pressure, ICARE, ORA, corneal hysteresis, central corneal thickness

Summary

Aim: To compare intraocular pressure readings (IOP) measured by ICARE PRO and ORA G3 and analyse the influence of the corneal hysteresis (CH), central corneal thickness (CCT), average central corneal radius, corneal astigmatism and age on the readings. In addition, to compare the repeatability of measurement by both tonometers.
Methods: The data was collected by IOP measurements in both eyes in 40 individuals between ages of 41 and 86 years. The number of 74 eyes (70 eyes in the case of ORA repeatability) were included to the study, remaining eyes were excluded due to incomplete data, abnormal cornea or low quality of measurement. The subjects were all diagnosed for glaucoma or were suspected of having glaucoma. In the case of ORA tonometer, the Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPG) and corneal compensated IOP (IOPCC) were monitored. The CH was measured by ORA, CCT by ultrasound pachymeter and corneal curvature and astigmatism by autokeratometer. The effect of corneal parameters and age on IOP or on differences between tonometers were analysed by multiple linear regression. The comparison of readings from both tonometers and repeatability analysis (based on test-retest) were realised using a paired t-test and a Bland-Altman method. The level of statistical significance was set to 0.05.
Results: The IOP readings from both tonometers were positively correlated with CCT and negatively with CH. The effects of other monitored parameters were insignificant. The mean ICARE PRO reading did not differ significantly from IOPG but were significantly lower than IOPCC. The variability of differences was, however, high in both cases and differences were influenced by IOP and CH (ICARE PRO shown higher readings with decreasing IOP and increasing hysteresis). The lowest repeatability coefficient shown ICARE PRO, the worst IOPCC (3.0 mmHg for ICARE PRO, 3.8 mmHg for IOPG and 4.8 mmHg for IOPCC).
Conclusion: The IOP values measured by both considered tonometers are significantly influenced by corneal hysteresis and central thickness. The effect of CCT can arise from an effect of a corneal stiffness. Regarding the high variability of mutual differences, the data from ICARE PRO and ORA are not interchangeable. The repeatability of ICARE PRO was comparable with Goldmann applanation tonometer measurement under given conditions, and better than ORA.

References

  1. Bland, JM., Altman, DG.: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 327(8476); 1986: 307-10.
  2. Brusini, P., Salvetat, ML., Zeppieri M. et al.: Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma, 15(3); 2006: 213-7.
  3. Chui, WS., Lam, A., Chen, D. et al.: The influence of corneal properties on rebound tonometry. Ophthalmology, 115(1); 2008: 80-4.
  4. Cymerman, A., Rock, PB., Muza, R. et al.: Intraocular pressure and acclimatization to 4300 m altitude. Aviat Space Envir Med, 71(10); 2000: 1045-50.
  5. Çevik, SG., Kıvanç, SA., Akova-Budak, B. et al.: Relationship among Corneal Biomechanics, Anterior Segment Parameters, and Geometric Corneal Parameters. J Ophthalmol; 2016: 8418613.
  6. Deol, M., Taylor, DA., Radcliffe, NM.: Corneal hysteresis and its relevance to glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 26(2); 2015: 96-102.
  7. Ersanli, D., Yildiz, S., Sonmez et al.: Intraocular pressure at a simulated altitude of 9000 m with and without 100% oxygen. Aviat Space Environ Med, 77(7); 2006: 704-6.
  8. Fernandes, P., Díaz-Rey, JA., Queirós A. et al.: Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 25(5); 2005: 436-40.
  9. Gandhi, NG., Prakalapakorn, SG., El-Dairi, MA. et al.: Icare ONE rebound versus Goldmann applanation tonometry in children with known or suspected glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol, 154(5); 2012: 843-849.
  10. Gillan, WDH.: Intra-ocular pressure measurements using the Ocular Response Analyser and ICare tonometer: A comparison. Afr Vision Eye Health, 74(1); 2015:29.
  11. Hagishima, M., Kamiya, K., Fujimura, F. et al.: Effect of corneal astigmatism on intraocular pressure measurement using ocular response analyzer and Goldmann applanation tonometer. Greafes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 248(2); 2010: 257-62.
  12. Hladíková, E., Pluháček, F., Marešová, K.: Porovnání měření nit - roočního tlaku ICARE PRO ® tonometrem a Goldmanovým aplanačním tonometrem. Cesk Slov Oftalmol, 70(3); 2014: 90-3.
  13. Iliev, ME., Goldblum, D., Katsoulis, K. et al.: Comparison of rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry and correlation with central corneal thickness. Br J Ophthalmol, 90(7); 2006: 833-5.
  14. Jorge, JM., González-Méijome, JM., Queirós, A. et al.: Correlations between corneal biomechanical properies measured with the ocular response analyzer and ICare rebound tonometry. J Glaucoma, 17(6); 2008: 442-8.
  15. Karadag, R., Sen, A., Golemez, H. et al.: The effect of shortterm hypobaric hypoxic exposure on intraocular pressure. Curr Eye Res, 33(10); 2008: 864-7.
  16. Kaushik, S., Pandav, SS.: Ocular Response Analyzer. J Curr Glaucoma Pract, 6(1); 2012: 17-9.
  17. Kirstein, EM., Elsheikh, A., Gunvant, P.: Tonometry – past, present and future. In Gunvant, P. (Ed), Glaucoma - current clinical and research aspects. InTech, 2011, p. 85-108.
  18. Kontiola, A.: A new electromechanical method for measuring intraocular pressure. Doc Ophthalmol, 93(3); 1997: 265-76.
  19. Malini, B., Rajendra, R., Anita, G. et al.: A study of correlation between central corneal thickness and intra ocular pressure measurement using Goldmann applanation tonometer and rebound tonometer. IOSR-JDMS, 13(2); 2014: 70-80.
  20. Martinez-de-la-Casa, JM., Gracia-Feijoo, J., Fernandez-Vidal, A. et al.: Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 47(10); 2006: 4410-4.
  21. Martinez-de-la-Casa, JM., Gracia-Feijoo, J., Castillo, A. et al.: Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 45(12); 2005: 4578-80.
  22. Moreno-Montañés, J., García, N., Fernández-Hortelano, A. et al.: Rebound tonometer compared with Goldmann tonometer in normal and pathologic corneas. Cornea, 26(4); 2007: 427-30.
  23. Moreno-Montañés, J., Maldonado, MJ., Gracía, N. et al.: Reproducibility and clinical relevance of the ocular response analyzer in nonoperated eyes: corneal biomechanical and tonometric implications. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 439(3); 2008: 968-74.
  24. Munkwitz, S., Elkarmouty, A., Hoffman, EM. et al.: Compa­ rison of the ICare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer over a wide IOP range. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 246(6); 2008: 875-9.
  25. Najmanová, E., Pluháček, F., Botek, M.: Intraocular pressure response to maximal exercise test during recovery. Optom Vis Sci, 95(2); 2018: 136-42.
  26. Najmanová, E., Pluháček, F., Botek, M.: Intraocular pressure response to moderate exercise during 30-min recovery. Optom Vis Sci, 93(3); 2016: 281-5.
  27. Najmanová, E., Pluháček, F., Botek, M. et al.: Intraocular pressure response to short-term extreme normobaric hypoxia exposure. Front Endocrinol, 9; 2018: 785
  28. Nakamura, M., Darhad, U., Tatsumi, Y. et al.: Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of applanation tonometers. Am J Ophthalmol, 142(2); 2006: 332-4.
  29. Pakrou, N., Gray, T., Mills, R. et al.: Clinical comparison of Icare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma, 17(1); 2008: 43-7.
  30. Pavlidis, M., Stupp, T., Georgalas, I. et al.: Intraocular pressure changes during high-altitude acclimatization. Greafes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 244(3); 2006:298-304.
  31. Pluháček, F., Siderov, J.: Mesopic visual acuity is less crowded. Greafes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 256(9); 2018: 1739-46.
  32. Prata, TS., De Moraes, CG., Kanadani, FN. et al.: Posture-induced intraocular pressure changes: considerations regarding body position in glaucoma patients. Surv Ophthalmol, 55(5); 2010: 445-53.
  33. Read, SA., Collins, MJ.: Water drinking influences eye length and IOP in young healthy subjects. Exp Eye Res, 91(2); 2010:180-5.
  34. Salcedo, H., Arciniega, D., Mayorga, M. et al.: Role of the water-drinking test in medically treated primary open angle glaucoma patients. J Fr Ophthalmol, 41(5); 2018: 421-4.
  35. Shin, J., Lee, JW., Kim, EA. et al.: The effect of corneal biomechanical properties on rebound tonometer in patients with normaltension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol, 159(1); 2015: 144-54.
  36. Sullivan-Mee, M., Gerhardt, G., Halverson, KD. et al.: Repeatability and reproducibility for intraocular pressure measurement by dynamic contour, ocular response analyzer, and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma, 18(9); 2009:666-73.
  37. Susanna, CN., Susanna, R. Jr, Hatanaka, M. et al.: Comparis- on of intraocular pressure changes during the water drinking test between different fluid volumes in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma, 27(11); 2018: 950-6.
  38. Vera, J., Jiménez, R., Redondo, B. et al.: Fitness level modulates intraocular pressure response to strength exercises. Curr Eye Res, 43(6); 2018: 740-6.
  39. Wang AS., Alencar, LM., Weinreb, RN. et al.: Repeatability and reproducibility of Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour and ocular response analyzer tonometry. J Glaucoma, 22(2); 2013: 127-32.