Evaluation of two applanation tonometers in cats

Paul E. Miller From the Departments of Surgical Sciences (Miller, Pickett) and Medical Sciences (Kurzman), School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School (Majors) 2015 Linden Dr West, Madison, WI 53706.

Search for other papers by Paul E. Miller in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
J. Phillip Pickett From the Departments of Surgical Sciences (Miller, Pickett) and Medical Sciences (Kurzman), School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School (Majors) 2015 Linden Dr West, Madison, WI 53706.

Search for other papers by J. Phillip Pickett in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Lynda J. Majors From the Departments of Surgical Sciences (Miller, Pickett) and Medical Sciences (Kurzman), School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School (Majors) 2015 Linden Dr West, Madison, WI 53706.

Search for other papers by Lynda J. Majors in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
, and
Ilene D. Kurzman From the Departments of Surgical Sciences (Miller, Pickett) and Medical Sciences (Kurzman), School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School (Majors) 2015 Linden Dr West, Madison, WI 53706.

Search for other papers by Ilene D. Kurzman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD

Click on author name to view affiliation information

SUMMARY

Comparisons of the MacKay-Marg and Tono-Pen applanation tonometers in open and closed in vitro systems were made for the eyes of cats. Both instruments significantly underestimated intraocular pressure (iop) vs direct manometry (P < 0.001), but in readily predictable manner, with high coefficients of determination (r2 = 0.99). For tonometer 1 (MacKay-Marg), calculated actual iOP = 1.36 × (MacKay-Marg measurement) − 1.67 mm of Hg; and for tonometer 2 (Tono-Pen), calculated actual iop = 1.37 × (Tono-Pen measurement) + 0.8 mm of Hg, using measurements from 11 enucleated eyes. In vivo comparisons were initially made in 81 clinically normal eyes (n = 41 cats) by applying the Tono-Pen first followed by the MacKay-Marg. Compared with the MacKay-Marg, the Tono-Pen significantly (P < 0.001) underestimated iOP in these cats. When the order of tonometer applanation was subsequently reversed in 73 clinically normal eyes (n = 37 cats) the Tono-Pen again significantly (P < 0.001) underestimated iOP, compared with the MacKay-Marg. Alterations in tonometer order did not result in significant differences in measured iOP for the MacKay-Marg when compared with itself, but Tono-Pen measurements were significantly (P < 0.05) less when its use followed, rather than preceded, that of the MacKay-Marg. Mean (± sd) iop in clinically normal cats when each tonometer was used first was 22.6 ± 4.0 mm of Hg (range, 14 to 32 mm of Hg) for the MacKay-Marg and 19.7 ± 5.6 mm of Hg (9 to 31 mm of Hg) for the Tono-Pen. The mean (± sd) absolute value of the differences between MacKay-Marg measurements and those obtained by use of the Tono-Pen was 3.2 ± 3.1 (range, 0 to 13 mm of Hg difference).

SUMMARY

Comparisons of the MacKay-Marg and Tono-Pen applanation tonometers in open and closed in vitro systems were made for the eyes of cats. Both instruments significantly underestimated intraocular pressure (iop) vs direct manometry (P < 0.001), but in readily predictable manner, with high coefficients of determination (r2 = 0.99). For tonometer 1 (MacKay-Marg), calculated actual iOP = 1.36 × (MacKay-Marg measurement) − 1.67 mm of Hg; and for tonometer 2 (Tono-Pen), calculated actual iop = 1.37 × (Tono-Pen measurement) + 0.8 mm of Hg, using measurements from 11 enucleated eyes. In vivo comparisons were initially made in 81 clinically normal eyes (n = 41 cats) by applying the Tono-Pen first followed by the MacKay-Marg. Compared with the MacKay-Marg, the Tono-Pen significantly (P < 0.001) underestimated iOP in these cats. When the order of tonometer applanation was subsequently reversed in 73 clinically normal eyes (n = 37 cats) the Tono-Pen again significantly (P < 0.001) underestimated iOP, compared with the MacKay-Marg. Alterations in tonometer order did not result in significant differences in measured iOP for the MacKay-Marg when compared with itself, but Tono-Pen measurements were significantly (P < 0.05) less when its use followed, rather than preceded, that of the MacKay-Marg. Mean (± sd) iop in clinically normal cats when each tonometer was used first was 22.6 ± 4.0 mm of Hg (range, 14 to 32 mm of Hg) for the MacKay-Marg and 19.7 ± 5.6 mm of Hg (9 to 31 mm of Hg) for the Tono-Pen. The mean (± sd) absolute value of the differences between MacKay-Marg measurements and those obtained by use of the Tono-Pen was 3.2 ± 3.1 (range, 0 to 13 mm of Hg difference).

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 51 51 19
PDF Downloads 34 34 7
Advertisement