• 1.

    Renwick PW, Petersen-Jones SM. Orbital and ocular pain. In: Peiffer RL Jr, Petersen-Jones SM, eds. Small Animal Ophthalmology: A Problem-Oriented Approach. 4th ed. Saunders Elsevier; 2009:227241.

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

    Plummer CE, Regnier A, Gelatt KN. The canine glaucomas. In: Gelatt KN, Gilger BC, Kern TJ, eds. Veterinary Ophthalmology. 5th ed. Wiley Blackwell; 2013:10501145.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Schmidt TF. On applanation tonometry. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1961;65:171177.

  • 4.

    Kontiola AI, Goldblum D, Mittag T, Danias J. The induction/impact tonometer: a new instrument to measure intraocular pressure in the rat. Exp Eye Res. 2001;73(6):781785.

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

    Kontiola A. A new electromechanical method for measuring intraocular pressure. Doc Ophthalmol. 1996–1997;93(3):265276.

  • 6.

    Featherstone HJ, Heinrich CL. Ophthalmic examination and diagnostics. In: Gelatt KN Gilger BC, Kern TJ, eds Veterinary Ophthalmology. 5th ed. Wiley Blackwell; 2013:533613.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Nagata N, Yuki M, Hasegawa T. In vitro and in vivo comparison of applanation tonometry and rebound tonometry in dogs. J Vet Med Sci. 2011;73(12):15851589.

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

    Priehs DR, Gum GG, Whitley RD, Moore LE. Evaluation of three applanation tonometers in dogs. Am J Vet Res. 1990;51(10):15471550.

  • 9.

    Knollinger AM, La Croix NC, Barrett PM, Miller PE. Evaluation of a rebound tonometer for measuring intraocular pressure in dogs and horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2005;227(2):244248.

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

    Gelatt KN, Peiffer RL Jr, Gum GG, Gwin RM, Erickson JL. Evaluation of applanation tonometers for the dog eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1977;16(10):963968.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Gelatt KN, MacKay EO. Distribution of intraocular pressure in dogs. Vet Ophthalmol. 1998;1(2-3):109114.

  • 12.

    Leiva M, Naranjo C, Pena MT. Comparison of the rebound tonometer (ICare) to the applanation tonometer (Tonopen XL) in normotensive dogs. Vet Ophthalmol. 2006;9(1):1721.

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

    McMillan F, Forster RK. Comparison of MacKay-Marg, Goldmann, and Perkins tonometers in abnormal corneas. Arch Ophthalmol. 1975;93(6):420424.

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

    Görig C, Coenen RTI, Stades FC, Djajadiningrat-Laanen SC, Boevé MH. Comparison of the use of new handheld tonometers and established applanation tonometers in dogs. Am J Vet Res. 2006;67(1):134144.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Tofflemire KL, Wang C, Jens JK, Ellinwood NM, Whitley RD, Ben-Shlomo G. Evaluation of three hand-held tonometers in normal canine eyes. Vet J. 2017;224:710.

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

    Miller PE, Pickett JP, Majors LJ, Kurzman ID. 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
  • 17.

    Miller PE, Pickett JP, Majors LJ, Kurzman ID. Evaluation of two applanation tonometers in cats. Am J Vet Res. 1991;52(11):19171921.

  • 18.

    Rusanen E, Florin M, Hässig M, Spiess BM. Evaluation of a rebound tonometer (Tonovet) in clinically normal cat eyes. Vet Ophthalmol. 2010;13(1):3136.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Dziezyc J, Millichamp NJ, Smith WB. Comparison of applanation tonometers in dogs and horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1992;201(3):430433.

  • 20.

    Moore CG, Milne ST, Morrison JC. Noninvasive measurement of rat intraocular pressure with the Tono-Pen. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34(2):363369.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Minella AL, Kiland JA, McLellan GJ. Validation of the TonoVet Plus and Tono-Pen AVIA tonometers in normal canine eyes. Vet Ophthalmol. 2019;22(3):E50. 49th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists abstract.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Thompson-Hom AL, Gerding PA Jr. Evaluation of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by use of a rebound tonometer and applanation tonometer in dogs before and after elective phacoemulsification. Am J Vet Res. 2012;73(5):709713.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    von Spiessen L, Karck J, Rohn K, Meyer-Lindenberg A. Clinical comparison of the TonoVet rebound tonometer and the Tono-Pen Vet applanation tonometer in dogs and cats with ocular disease: glaucoma or corneal pathology. Vet Ophthalmol. 2015;18(1):2027.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Browning AC, Bhan A, Rotchford AP, Shah S, Dua HS. The effect of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurement in patients with corneal pathology. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(11):13951399.

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

    Goldblum D, Kontiola AI, Mittag T, Chen B, Danias J. 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(11):942946.

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

    Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Castillo A, Garcia-Sanchez J. Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(12):45784580.

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

    Chui WS, Lam A, Chen D, Chiu R. The influence of corneal properties on rebound tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(1):8084.

  • 28.

    Sahin A, Basmak H, Yildirim N. The influence of central corneal thickness and corneal curvature on intraocular pressure measured by tono-pen and rebound tonometer in children. J Glaucoma. 2008;17(1):5761.

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

    Poostchi A, Mitchell R, Nicholas S, Purdie G, Wells A. The iCare rebound tonometer: comparisons with Goldmann tonometry, and influence of central corneal thickness. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;37(7):687691.

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

    Rao A, Kumar M, Prakash B, Varshney G. Relationship of central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure by iCare rebound tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2014;23(6):380384.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Park YW, Jeong MB, Kim TH, et al. Effect of central corneal thickness on intraocular pressure with the rebound tonometer and the applanation tonometer in normal dogs. Vet Ophthalmol. 2011;14(3):169173.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Ahn JT, Jeong MB, Park YW, et al. Accuracy of intraocular pressure measurements in dogs using two different tonometers and plano therapeutic soft contact lenses. Vet Ophthalmol. 2012;15(suppl 1):8388.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Moeller E, Blocker T, Esson D, Madsen R. Postoperative glaucoma in the Labrador Retriever: incidence, risk factors, and visual outcome following routine phacoemulsification. Vet Ophthalmol. 2011;14(6):385394.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Broadwater JJ, Schorling JJ, Herring IP, Elvinger F. Effect of body position on intraocular pressure in dogs without glaucoma. Am J Vet Res. 2008;69(4):527530.

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

    McLellan GJ, Kemmerling JP, Kiland JA. Validation of the TonoVet rebound tonometer in normal and glaucomatous cats. Vet Ophthalmol. 2013;16(2):111118.

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

    Jeong MB, Kim YJ, Yi NY, et al. Comparison of the rebound tonometer (TonoVet) with the applanation tonometer (TonoPen XL) in normal Eurasian Eagle owls (Bubo bubo). Vet Ophthalmol. 2007;10(6):376379.

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

    Slack JM, Stiles J, Moore GE. Comparison of a rebound tonometer with an applanation tonometer in dogs with glaucoma. Vet Rec. 2012;171(15):373.

  • 38.

    Shah S. Accurate intraocular pressure measurement—the myth of modern ophthalmology? Ophthalmology. 2000;107(10):18051807.

  • 39.

    Jorge JM, González-Méijome JM, Queirós A, Fernandes P, Parafita MA. Correlations between corneal biomechanical properties measured with the ocular response analyzer and ICare rebound tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2008;17(6):442448.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    Bhan A, Browning AC, Shah S, Hamilton R, Dave D, Dua HS. Effect of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurements with the pneumotonometer, Goldmann applanation tonometer, and Tono-Pen. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43(5):13891392.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Kato K. Comparison of two handheld applanation tonometers and the association of central corneal thickness, age, and intraocular pressure in normal and diseased canine eyes. Vet Ophthalmol. 2014;17(6):417425.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Harada Y, Hirose N, Kubota T, Tawara A. The influence of central corneal thickness and corneal curvature radius on the intraocular pressure as measured by different tonometers: noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers. J Glaucoma. 2008;17(8):619625.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43.

    Ogbuehi KC, Osuagwu UL. Corneal biomechanical properties: precision and influence on tonometry. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2014;37(3):124131.

  • 44.

    Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(1):146155.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45.

    Deol M, Taylor DA, Radcliffe NM. Corneal hysteresis and its relevance to glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2015;26(2):96102.

  • 46.

    Kotecha A. What biomechanical properties of the cornea are relevant for the clinician? Surv Ophthalmol. 2007;52(suppl 2):S109S114.

  • 47.

    Rootman DS, Insler MS, Thompson HW, Parelman J, Poland D, Unterman SR. Accuracy and precision of the Tono-Pen in measuring intraocular pressure after keratoplasty and epikeratophakia and in scarred corneas. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106(12):16971700.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48.

    Madjlessi F, Marx W, Reinhard T, Althaus C, Sundmacher R. Impression and applanation tonometry in irregular corneas. Comparison with intraocular needle tonometry. Article in German. Ophthalmologe. 2000;97(7):478481.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49.

    Chihara E. Assessment of true intraocular pressure: the gap between theory and practical data. Surv Ophthalmol. 2008;53(3):203218.

  • 50.

    de Oliveira JK, Montiani-Ferreira F, Williams DL. The influence of the tonometer position on canine intraocular pressure measurements using the Tonovet rebound tonometer. Open Vet J. 2018;8(1):6876.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Comparison of intraocular pressures estimated by rebound and applanation tonometry in dogs with lens instability: 66 cases (2012–2018)

View More View Less
  • 1 From the Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital (Schlesener, Cooper), Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences (Leonard, Hollingsworth, Maggs), and Department of Population Health and Reproduction (Kass), School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616; and Department of Surgical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706 (Miller).

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare intraocular pressures (IOPs) estimated by rebound and applanation tonometry for dogs with lens instability.

ANIMALS

66 dogs.

PROCEDURES

Medical records of dogs examined between September 2012 and July 2018 were reviewed for diagnoses of anterior (ALL) or posterior (PLL) lens luxation or lens subluxation.

RESULTS

Estimates of IOP obtained with rebound and applanation tonometry significantly differed from each other for all types of lens instability considered collectively (mean ± SE difference between tonometric readings, 8.1 ± 1.3 mm Hg) and specific types of lens instability considered individually (mean ± SE difference between tonometric readings: ALL, 12.8 ± 2.5 mm Hg; PLL, 5.9 ± 1.7 mm Hg; subluxation, 2.8 ± 0.8 mm Hg). Median (range) differences between rebound and applanation tonometer readings for dogs with ALL was 5 mm Hg (–9 to 76 mm Hg), with PLL was 3 mm Hg (–1 to 19 mm Hg), and with lens subluxation was 3 mm Hg (–9 to 18 mm Hg). In eyes with ALL, rebound tonometer readings exceeded applanation tonometer readings on 44 of 60 (73%) occasions.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Rebound tonometry yielded higher estimates of IOP than did applanation tonometry in eyes with ALL and with all types of lens luxation considered collectively. Estimates of IOP in eyes with lens instability should ideally be obtained with both rebound and applanation tonometers. Veterinarians with only one type of tonometer should interpret results for dogs with lens instability concurrent with physical examination findings.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare intraocular pressures (IOPs) estimated by rebound and applanation tonometry for dogs with lens instability.

ANIMALS

66 dogs.

PROCEDURES

Medical records of dogs examined between September 2012 and July 2018 were reviewed for diagnoses of anterior (ALL) or posterior (PLL) lens luxation or lens subluxation.

RESULTS

Estimates of IOP obtained with rebound and applanation tonometry significantly differed from each other for all types of lens instability considered collectively (mean ± SE difference between tonometric readings, 8.1 ± 1.3 mm Hg) and specific types of lens instability considered individually (mean ± SE difference between tonometric readings: ALL, 12.8 ± 2.5 mm Hg; PLL, 5.9 ± 1.7 mm Hg; subluxation, 2.8 ± 0.8 mm Hg). Median (range) differences between rebound and applanation tonometer readings for dogs with ALL was 5 mm Hg (–9 to 76 mm Hg), with PLL was 3 mm Hg (–1 to 19 mm Hg), and with lens subluxation was 3 mm Hg (–9 to 18 mm Hg). In eyes with ALL, rebound tonometer readings exceeded applanation tonometer readings on 44 of 60 (73%) occasions.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Rebound tonometry yielded higher estimates of IOP than did applanation tonometry in eyes with ALL and with all types of lens luxation considered collectively. Estimates of IOP in eyes with lens instability should ideally be obtained with both rebound and applanation tonometers. Veterinarians with only one type of tonometer should interpret results for dogs with lens instability concurrent with physical examination findings.

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplementary Table S1 (PDF 142 KB)

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Maggs (djmaggs@ucdavis.edu).