Evaluation of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by use of a rebound tonometer and applanation tonometer in dogs before and after elective phacoemulsification

Amy L. Thompson-Hom Eye Care For Animals, 2002 W Main St, Ste Q, St Charles, IL 60174.

Search for other papers by Amy L. Thompson-Hom in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
and
Paul A. Gerding Jr Eye Care For Animals, 2002 W Main St, Ste Q, St Charles, IL 60174.

Search for other papers by Paul A. Gerding Jr in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS

Abstract

Objective—To determine whether an applanation tonometer and rebound tonometer can be used to detect similar intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements in eyes of dogs undergoing phacoemulsification.

Animals—24 dogs (40 eyes) undergoing elective phacoemulsification.

Procedures—IOP measurements were obtained from each eye by use of both the rebound tonometer and applanation tonometer. Central corneal thickness was measured by use of an ultrasonic pachymeter 3 hours before surgery and 2 and 24 hours after surgery. Statistical analysis was performed by use of paired t tests.

Results—Mean ± SD IOP 3 hours before surgery, 2 hours after surgery, and 24 hours after surgery was 11.9 ± 4.7 mm Hg, 15.5 ± 11.7 mm Hg, and 10.9 ± 6.7 mm Hg, respectively, as measured with the rebound tonometer and 12.2 ± 5.3 mm Hg, 15.7 ± 12.5 mm Hg, and 12.4 ± 5.4 mm Hg, respectively, as measured with the applanation tonometer. Measured IOP did not differ significantly between the 2 tonometers 3 hours before surgery and 2 hours after surgery, but measured IOP differed significantly between the tonometers 24 hours after surgery.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Use of a rebound tonometer underestimated IOP, relative to results for use of an applanation tonometer, by 1.65 mm Hg in eyes 24 hours after phacoemulsification. Caution should be used when IOP measurements obtained with a rebound tonometer are in the high part of the reference range, and verification of these values with an applanation tonometer would be advised.

Abstract

Objective—To determine whether an applanation tonometer and rebound tonometer can be used to detect similar intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements in eyes of dogs undergoing phacoemulsification.

Animals—24 dogs (40 eyes) undergoing elective phacoemulsification.

Procedures—IOP measurements were obtained from each eye by use of both the rebound tonometer and applanation tonometer. Central corneal thickness was measured by use of an ultrasonic pachymeter 3 hours before surgery and 2 and 24 hours after surgery. Statistical analysis was performed by use of paired t tests.

Results—Mean ± SD IOP 3 hours before surgery, 2 hours after surgery, and 24 hours after surgery was 11.9 ± 4.7 mm Hg, 15.5 ± 11.7 mm Hg, and 10.9 ± 6.7 mm Hg, respectively, as measured with the rebound tonometer and 12.2 ± 5.3 mm Hg, 15.7 ± 12.5 mm Hg, and 12.4 ± 5.4 mm Hg, respectively, as measured with the applanation tonometer. Measured IOP did not differ significantly between the 2 tonometers 3 hours before surgery and 2 hours after surgery, but measured IOP differed significantly between the tonometers 24 hours after surgery.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Use of a rebound tonometer underestimated IOP, relative to results for use of an applanation tonometer, by 1.65 mm Hg in eyes 24 hours after phacoemulsification. Caution should be used when IOP measurements obtained with a rebound tonometer are in the high part of the reference range, and verification of these values with an applanation tonometer would be advised.

Contributor Notes

Presented in abstract form at the 38th Annual American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists Conference, Kona, Hawaii, October 2007.

Address correspondence to Dr. Thompson-Hom (ahom@eyecareforanimals.com).
  • 1.

    Copt RP, Thomas R, Mermoud A. Corneal thickness in ocular hypertension, primary open-angle glaucoma, and normal tension glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117:1416.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Whitacre MM, Stein RA, Hassanein K. The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 1993; 115:592596.

  • 3.

    Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S. Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1975; 53:3443.

  • 4.

    Doughty M, Zaman M. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol 2000; 44:367408.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Orssengo G, Pye D. Determination of the true intraocular pressure and modulus of elasticity of the human cornea in vivo. Bull Math Biol 1999; 61:551572.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Sobottka A, Böhnke M, Mojon D. Central corneal thickness measurements in patients with normal tension glaucoma, primary open angle glaucoma, pseudoexfoliation glaucoma, or ocular hypertension. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85:792795.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Tamburrelli C, Giudiceandrea A, Vaiano AS, et al. Underestimate of tonometric readings after photorefractive keratectomy increases at higher intraocular pressure levels. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:32083213.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Kaufmann C, Bachmann L, Thiel M. Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44:37903794.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Browning A, Bhan A, Ratchford A, et al. The effect of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurement in patients with corneal pathology. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88:13951399.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Azuara-Blanco A, Bhojani T, Sarhan A, et al. Tono-Pen determination of intraocular pressure in patients with band keratopathy of glued cornea. Br J Ophthalmol 1998; 82:634636.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Priehs D, Gum GG, Whitley RD, et al. Evaluation of three applanation tonometers in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1990; 51:15471550.

  • 12.

    Menage M, Kaufman P, Croft A, et al. Intraocular pressure measurement after penetrating keratoplasty: minified Goldmann applanation tonometer, pneumatonometer, and Tono-Pen versus manometry. Br J Ophthalmol 1994; 78:671676.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Danias J, Knotiola A, Filippopoulos T, et al. Method for the non-invasive measurement of intraocular pressure in mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44:11381141.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Roberts D. Comparison of iCARE Tonometer with Pulsair and Tonopen in domiciliary work. Optometry Pract 2005; 6:3339.

  • 15.

    Wang WH, Millar JC, Pang IH, et al. Noninvasive measurement of rodent intraocular pressure with a rebound tonometer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:46174621.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Miglior S, Albe E, Guareschi M, et al. Intraobserver and interob-server reproducibility in the evaluation of ultrasonic pachymetry measurements of central corneal thickness. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88:174177.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Bechmann M, Thiel M, Roesen B, et al. Central corneal thickness determined with optical coherence tomography in various types of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84:12331237.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Lynch G, Brinkis J. The effect of elective phacofragmentation on central corneal thickness in the dog. Vet Ophthalmol 2006; 9:303310.

  • 19.

    Miller PE, Stanz KM, Dubielzig RR, et al. Mechanisms of acute intraocular pressure increases after phacoemulsification lens extraction in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1997; 58:11591165.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Gilger BC, Whitley RD, McLaughlin SA, et al. Canine corneal thickness measured by ultrasonic pachymetry. Am J Vet Res 1991; 52:15701572.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Miller P, Pickett P, Majors L. Evaluation of two applanation tonometers in horses. Am J Vet Res 1990; 51:935937.

  • 22.

    Gelatt K, MacKay E. Distribution of intraocular pressure in dogs. Vet Ophthalmol 1998; 1:109114.

  • 23.

    Miller P, Pickett P, Majors L, et al. Clinical comparison of the Mackay-Marg and Tono-Pen applanation tonometers in the dog. Prog Vet Comp Ophthalmol 1991; 1:171176.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Rootman D, Insler M, Thompson H, et al. Accuracy and precision of the Tono-Pen in measuring intraocular pressure after keratoplasty and epikeratophakia and in scarred corneas. Arch Ophthalmol 1988; 106:16971700.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Feltgen N, Leifert D, Funk J. Correlation between central corneal thickness, applanation tonometry, and direct intracameral IOP readings. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85:8587.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Tonnu PA, Ho T, Sharma K, et al. A comparison of four methods of tonometry: method agreement and interobserver variability. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89:847850.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Bhan A, Browning A, Shah S, et al. Effect of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurements with the pneumotonometer, Goldmann applanation tonometer, and Tono-Pen. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002; 43:13891392.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Kao S, Lichter P, Berstrom T. Clinical comparison of the Oculab Tono-Pen to the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Ophthalmology 1987; 94:15411544.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Frenkel R, Hong Y, Dong H, et al. Comparison of the Tono-Pen to the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Arch Ophthalmol 1988; 106:750753.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Dziezye J, Millichamp NJ, Smith WB. Comparison of applanation tonometers in dogs and horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992; 201:430433.

  • 31.

    Geyer O, Mayron Y, Loewenstein A, et al. Tono-Pen tonometry in normal and in post-keratoplasty eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 1992; 76:538540.

  • 32.

    Wright M, Grajewski A. Measurement of intraocular pressure after epikeratophakia. Br J Ophthalmol 1997; 81:448451.

  • 33.

    Miller P, Murphy CJ. Intraocular pressure measurement through two types of plano therapeutic soft contact lenses in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1995; 56:14181420.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Knollinger AM, La Croix NC, Barrett PM, et al. Evaluation of a rebound tonometer for measuring intraocular pressure in dogs and horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 227:244248.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Goldblum D, Kontiola AI, Mittag T, et al. Non-invasive determination of intraocular pressure in the rat eye. Comparison of an electronic tonometer (TonoPen), and a rebound (impact probe) tonometer. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2002; 240:942946.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    Rusanen E, Florin M, Hässig M, et al. Valuation of a rebound tonometer (Tonovet) in clinically normal cat eyes. Vet Ophthalmol 2010; 13:3136.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    Gorig C, Coenen RT, Stades FC, et al. Comparison of the use of new handheld tonometers and established applanation tonometers in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67:134144.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    Leiva M, Naranjo C, Pena T. Comparison of the rebound tonometer (ICare) to the applanation tonometer (Tonopen XL) in normotensive dogs. Vet Ophthalmol 2006; 9:1721.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    Martines-de-la-casa J, Garcia-Feijoo J, Castillo A, et al. Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46:45784580.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement