Comparison of Air Puff Tonometer with Gold Standard Applanation Tonometer for Measurement of Intraocular Pressure in Adult Population: Intraocular Pressure Measurement Comparison

Yaruq Sami Shaikh; Asadullah Jatoi

doi:10.54393/pjhs.v5i04.1498

Authors

Yaruq Sami Shaikh Department of Ophthalmology, Isra University Hospital, Hyderabad, Pakistan
Asadullah Jatoi Institute of Ophthalmology, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v5i04.1498

Keywords:

Intraocular Pressure, Glaucoma, Air Puff Tonometer, Goldmann Applanation

Abstract

Detecting and treating glaucoma early is vital to prevent vision loss. Two main instruments, the Air Puff Tonometer and the Gold Standard Applanation Tonometer, are used to measure Intraocular Pressure (IOP). However, there is ongoing debate among ophthalmologists regarding the accuracy and reliability of these devices. Objective: To evaluate and contrast the measurements of intraocular pressure obtained through Air puff tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted upon 900 patients of Glaucoma, selected through purposive sampling technique, attending the Eye OPD of Isra University Hospital, Hyderabad. Patients with age more than 18 years, of both genders who provided consent for eye examination and treatment, were included in the study while patients with corneal disease or prior surgery, ocular trauma, or those presenting with active infection or ocular disease were excluded from the study. Results: 396 (44.0%) of patients were males and 504 (56.0%) were females. The results indicate that the mean IOP measurement for air puff tonometry (17.43 mm Hg) is significantly higher (p-value=0.0001) than the mean measurement obtained by Goldman tonometry (13.84 mm Hg). Overall, the distribution of IOP was similar for both types of tonometry, with a slightly higher proportion having high IOP values (19-22 mmHg) with Goldman tonometry compared to air puff tonometry. Conclusions: The findings of this research demonstrated a noteworthy contrast between the two techniques, where the air puff tonometry produced noticeably elevated intraocular pressure measurements in comparison to the widely accepted applanation tonometry

References

Stock Ra, Ströher C, Sampaio Rr, Mergener Ra, Bonamigo El. A Comparative Study between the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer and the Non-Contact Air-Puff Tonometer (Huvitz Hnt 7000) In Normal Eyes. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2021 Feb; 15: 445-51. doi: 10.2147/Opth.S294710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S294710

Stein JD, Khawaja AP, Weizer JS. Glaucoma in adults-screening, diagnosis, and management: a review. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2021 Jan; 325(2): 164-74. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.21899. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.21899

Weinreb RN, Leung CK, Crowston JG, Medeiros FA, Friedman DS, Wiggs JL et al. Primary open-angle glaucoma. Nature reviews Disease primers. 2016 Sep; 2(1): 1-9. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2016.67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2016.67

Garg A, Vickerstaff V, Nathwani N, Garway-Heath D, Konstantakopoulou E, Ambler G et al. Efficacy of repeat selective laser trabeculoplasty in medication-naive open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension during the LiGHT trial. Ophthalmology. 2020 Apr; 127(4): 467-76. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.10.023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.10.023

Reis TF, Paula JS, Furtado JM. Primary glaucomas in adults: Epidemiology and public health‐A review. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology. 2022 Mar; 50(2): 128-42. doi: 10.1111/ceo.14040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.14040

Allison K, Patel D, Alabi O. Epidemiology of glaucoma: the past, present, and predictions for the future. Cureus. 2020 Nov; 12(11). doi: 10.7759/cureus.11686. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.11686

McMonnies CW. Glaucoma history and risk factors. Journal of Optometry. 2017 Apr; 10(2): 71-8. doi: 10.1016/j.optom.2016.02.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2016.02.003

Grzybowski A, Och M, Kanclerz P, Leffler C, De Moraes CG. Primary open angle glaucoma and vascular risk factors: a review of population based studies from 1990 to 2019. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020 Mar; 9(3): 761. doi: 10.3390/jcm9030761. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030761

Lee DA and Higginbotham EJ. Glaucoma and its treatment: a review. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. 2005 Apr; 62(7): 691-9. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/62.7.691. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/62.7.691

Weinreb RN, Aung T, Medeiros FA. The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review. Jama. 2014 May; 311(18): 1901-11. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.3192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.3192

Schuster AK, Erb C, Hoffmann EM, Dietlein T, Pfeiffer N. The diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. 2020 Mar; 117(13): 225. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2020.0225

Tanito M, Sugihara K, Hara K, Takai Y. Different glaucoma types and glaucoma surgeries among different age groups. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. 2018 Oct; 256: 2013-4. doi: 10.1007/s00417-018-4058-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-4058-x

Wang YX, Xu L, Wei WB, Jonas JB. Intraocular pressure and its normal range adjusted for ocular and systemic parameters. The Beijing Eye Study 2011. PLoS One. 2018 May; 13(5): e0196926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196926. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196926

Flammer J, Orgül S, Costa VP, Orzalesi N, Krieglstein GK, Serra LM et al. The impact of ocular blood flow in glaucoma. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. 2002 Jul; 21(4): 359-93. doi: 10.1016/S1350-9462(02)00008-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-9462(02)00008-3

Yanagi M, Kawasaki R, Wang JJ, Wong TY, Crowston J, Kiuchi Y et al. Vascular risk factors in glaucoma: a review. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology. 2011 Apr; 39(3): 252-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.02455.X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.02455.x

Davis BM, Crawley L, Pahlitzsch M, Javaid F, Cordeiro MF. Glaucoma: the retina and beyond. Acta Neuropathologica. 2016 Dec; 132: 807-26. doi: 10.1007/s00401-016-1609-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-016-1609-2

Ahmad SS. Controversies in the vascular theory of glaucomatous optic nerve degeneration. Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology. 2016 Dec; 6(4): 182-6. doi: 10.1016/j.tjo.2016.05.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjo.2016.05.009

Molaei A, Karamzadeh V, Safi S, Esfandiari H, Dargahi J, Khosravi MA et al. Upcoming methods and specifications of continuous intraocular pressure monitoring systems for glaucoma. Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research. 2018 Jan; 13(1): 66. doi: 10.4103/jovr.jovr_208_17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jovr.jovr_208_17

Mirza UT, Sadiq MU, Sadiq MI, Raza A, Khan WA. Comparative study of intraocular pressure measurements with airpuff, icare and goldmann applanation tonometers. Pakistan Journal of Ophthalmology. 2021; 37(1). doi: 10.36351/pjo.V37I1.1139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36351/pjo.v37i1.1139

Vandewalle E, Vandenbroeck S, Stalmans I, Zeyen T. Comparison of ICare, dynamic contour tonometer, and ocular response analyzer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma. European Journal of Ophthalmology. 2009 Sep; 19(5): 783-9. doi: 10.1177/112067210901900516. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/112067210901900516

Raina UK, Rathie N, Gupta A, Gupta SK, Thakar M. Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometer, Tono-Pen and noncontact tonometer in children. Oman Journal of Ophthalmology. 2016 Jan; 9(1): 22-6. doi: 10.4103/0974-620X.176096. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-620X.176096

Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Brusini P. Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the TonoPen, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica. 2007 May; 85(3): 272-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2006.00834.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0420.2006.00834.x

Ahmad J, Khan MR, Arain MN, Qazi ZU. Accuracy of IOP Measured By Non-Contact (Air? Puff) Tonometer Compared with Goldmann Applanation. Pakistan Journal of Ophthalmology. 2014; 30(1). doi: 10.36351/pjo.v30i1.303.

Fırat PG, Cankaya C, Doganay SE, Cavdar M, Duman SA, Ozsoy E et al. The influence of soft contact lenses on the intraocular pressure measurement. Eye. 2012 Feb; 26(2): 278-82. doi: 10.1038/eye.2011.271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2011.271

Osman EA, Gikandi PW, Al-Jasser AR, Alotaibi M, Mousa A. Comparison of Goldmann applanation, noncontact air puff, and Tono-pen XL tonometry in normal controls versus glaucoma patients at a university hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology. 2018 Jan; 25(1): 8-13. doi: 10.4103/meajo.MEAJO_291_16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/meajo.MEAJO_291_16

Martinez‐de‐la‐Casa JM, Jimenez‐Santos M, Saenz‐Frances F, Matilla‐Rodero M, Mendez‐Hernandez C, Herrero‐Vanrell R et al. Performance of the rebound, noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers in routine clinical practice. Acta Ophthalmologica. 2011 Nov; 89(7): 676-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2009.01774.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2009.01774.x

Tonnu PA, Ho T, Sharma K, White E, Bunce C, Garway-Heath D et al. A comparison of four methods of tonometry: method agreement and interobserver variability. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2005 Jul; 89(7): 847-50. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2004.056614. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2004.056614

Rao BS. Clinical evaluation of the non-contact tonometer and comparison with Goldmann applanation tonometer. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 1984 Sep; 32(5): 432-4.

Bang SP, Lee CE, Kim YC. Comparison of intraocular pressure as measured by three different non-contact tonometers and goldmann applanation tonometer for non-glaucomatous subjects. BMC Ophthalmology. 2017 Dec; 17: 1-6. doi: 10.1186/s12886-017-0593-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0593-1

Nadeem S, Naeem BA, Tahira R, Khalid S, Hannan A. Comparison of Goldmann applanation, Diaton transpalpebral and Air Puff tonometers. Pakistan Journal of Ophthalmology. 2015 Mar; 31(1). doi: 10.36351/pjo.v31i1.148.

Kyei S, Gboglu CP, Kwarteng MA, Assiamah F. Comparative assessment of the goldmann applanation and noncontact tonometers in intraocular pressure measurements in a sample of glaucoma patients in the Cape Coast Metropolis, Ghana. Nigerian Medical Journal: Journal of the Nigeria Medical Association. 2020 Nov; 61(6): 323. doi: 10.4103/nmj.NMJ_177_20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/nmj.NMJ_177_20

Awoyesuku E and Onua AA. Non-contact Tonometry Versus Pachymetry Corrected Intraocular Pressure: Any Difference? A Case for Pachymetry during Glaucoma Screening. 2019; 38(6): 1-7 doi: 10.9734/CJAST/2019/v38i630393. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/cjast/2019/v38i630393

Chihara E. Assessment of true intraocular pressure: the gap between theory and practical data. Survey of Ophthalmology. 2008 May; 53(3): 203-18. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.02.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.02.005

AlMubrad TM and Ogbuehi KC. The effect of repeated applanation on subsequent IOP measurements. Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 2008 Nov; 91(6): 524-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00298.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00298.x

Salim S, Linn DJ, Echols JR, Netland PA. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements with the portable PT100 noncontact tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2009 Jun; 3: 341-4. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S5537. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S5537

AlMubrad TM. Performance of the PT100 noncontact tonometer in healthy eyes. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2011 May; 5: 661-6. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S19885. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S19885

Ogbuehi KC, Chijuka JC, Osuagwu UL. Two-position measurement of intraocular pressure by PT100 noncontact tonometry in comparison with Goldmann tonometry. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2011 Sep: 1227-34. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S23922. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S23922

García‐Resúa C, Pena‐Verdeal H, Miñones M, Giraldez MJ, Yebra‐Pimentel E. Reliability of the non‐contact tono‐pachymeter Tonopachy NT‐530P in healthy eyes. Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 2013 May; 96(3): 286-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2012.00818.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2012.00818.x