Comparison between tonopachy and other tonometric and pachymetric devices

Yong Gi Lee, Ji Hyun Kim, Na Rae Kim, chanyun kim, Eun Suk Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose. This study aimed to compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurement by Tonopachy to that by Pentacam and ultrasound pachymetry, and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement to that by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The reproducibility of CCT and IOP measurements by Tonopachy was also evaluated. Methods. In 104 eyes of 104 patients, CCT was measured by Tonopachy, Pentacam, and ultrasound pachymetry, and IOP was measured by Tonopachy and GAT. Each CCT and IOP measurement was compared using Pearson correlation, repeated measures analysis of variance, and Bland-Altman plots. In 30 subjects, CCT and IOP measurements by Tonopachy were repeated to evaluate intrasession and intraobserver variability. Results. Both CCT and IOP measurements were highly correlated among all instruments used in this study. CCT measurements by three pachymeters were statistically different (p < 0.0001). CCT measured by ultrasound pachymetry was lowest (541.7 ± 30.6 μm) whereas those by Tonopachy and Pentacam showed no difference (557.3 ± 34.3 and 558.0 ± 33.7 μm, respectively). Tonopachy overestimated CCT by 13.9 μm when compared with ultrasound pachymetry. There was a statistically significant difference between IOP measurements by two tonometers (p < 0.0001); IOP measurement was higher by Tonopachy than by GAT (13.9 ± 4.2 and 12.5 ± 3.2 mm Hg, respectively). Tonopachy overestimated IOP measurements by 1.2 mm Hg compared with GAT. Intersession agreements for IOP and CCT measurements by Tonopachy were excellent (intraclass correlation, 0.902 and 0.962, respectively) with 95% limits of agreement ranging from -1.4 to 2.2 mm Hg and from -12.9 to 12.1 μm, respectively. Conclusions. Although CCT and IOP measurements obtained by Tonopachy were reproducible and showed close agreement with ultrasound pachymetry and Pentacam, and GAT, careful attention should be paid when comparing Tonopachy CCT measurement to ultrasound pachymetry or its IOP measurement to GAT as the values may not be interchangeable. Tonopachy is a reliable instrument for evaluating CCT and IOP.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)843-849
Number of pages7
JournalOptometry and Vision Science
Volume88
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011 Jul 1

Fingerprint

Intraocular Pressure
Equipment and Supplies
Manometry
Corneal Pachymetry
Observer Variation
Analysis of Variance

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ophthalmology
  • Optometry

Cite this

Lee, Yong Gi ; Kim, Ji Hyun ; Kim, Na Rae ; kim, chanyun ; Lee, Eun Suk. / Comparison between tonopachy and other tonometric and pachymetric devices. In: Optometry and Vision Science. 2011 ; Vol. 88, No. 7. pp. 843-849.
@article{59f1e57d89724b95a575f34b56bbfe80,
title = "Comparison between tonopachy and other tonometric and pachymetric devices",
abstract = "Purpose. This study aimed to compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurement by Tonopachy to that by Pentacam and ultrasound pachymetry, and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement to that by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The reproducibility of CCT and IOP measurements by Tonopachy was also evaluated. Methods. In 104 eyes of 104 patients, CCT was measured by Tonopachy, Pentacam, and ultrasound pachymetry, and IOP was measured by Tonopachy and GAT. Each CCT and IOP measurement was compared using Pearson correlation, repeated measures analysis of variance, and Bland-Altman plots. In 30 subjects, CCT and IOP measurements by Tonopachy were repeated to evaluate intrasession and intraobserver variability. Results. Both CCT and IOP measurements were highly correlated among all instruments used in this study. CCT measurements by three pachymeters were statistically different (p < 0.0001). CCT measured by ultrasound pachymetry was lowest (541.7 ± 30.6 μm) whereas those by Tonopachy and Pentacam showed no difference (557.3 ± 34.3 and 558.0 ± 33.7 μm, respectively). Tonopachy overestimated CCT by 13.9 μm when compared with ultrasound pachymetry. There was a statistically significant difference between IOP measurements by two tonometers (p < 0.0001); IOP measurement was higher by Tonopachy than by GAT (13.9 ± 4.2 and 12.5 ± 3.2 mm Hg, respectively). Tonopachy overestimated IOP measurements by 1.2 mm Hg compared with GAT. Intersession agreements for IOP and CCT measurements by Tonopachy were excellent (intraclass correlation, 0.902 and 0.962, respectively) with 95{\%} limits of agreement ranging from -1.4 to 2.2 mm Hg and from -12.9 to 12.1 μm, respectively. Conclusions. Although CCT and IOP measurements obtained by Tonopachy were reproducible and showed close agreement with ultrasound pachymetry and Pentacam, and GAT, careful attention should be paid when comparing Tonopachy CCT measurement to ultrasound pachymetry or its IOP measurement to GAT as the values may not be interchangeable. Tonopachy is a reliable instrument for evaluating CCT and IOP.",
author = "Lee, {Yong Gi} and Kim, {Ji Hyun} and Kim, {Na Rae} and chanyun kim and Lee, {Eun Suk}",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/OPX.0b013e31821896f1",
language = "English",
volume = "88",
pages = "843--849",
journal = "Optometry and Vision Science",
issn = "1040-5488",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "7",

}

Comparison between tonopachy and other tonometric and pachymetric devices. / Lee, Yong Gi; Kim, Ji Hyun; Kim, Na Rae; kim, chanyun; Lee, Eun Suk.

In: Optometry and Vision Science, Vol. 88, No. 7, 01.07.2011, p. 843-849.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison between tonopachy and other tonometric and pachymetric devices

AU - Lee, Yong Gi

AU - Kim, Ji Hyun

AU - Kim, Na Rae

AU - kim, chanyun

AU - Lee, Eun Suk

PY - 2011/7/1

Y1 - 2011/7/1

N2 - Purpose. This study aimed to compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurement by Tonopachy to that by Pentacam and ultrasound pachymetry, and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement to that by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The reproducibility of CCT and IOP measurements by Tonopachy was also evaluated. Methods. In 104 eyes of 104 patients, CCT was measured by Tonopachy, Pentacam, and ultrasound pachymetry, and IOP was measured by Tonopachy and GAT. Each CCT and IOP measurement was compared using Pearson correlation, repeated measures analysis of variance, and Bland-Altman plots. In 30 subjects, CCT and IOP measurements by Tonopachy were repeated to evaluate intrasession and intraobserver variability. Results. Both CCT and IOP measurements were highly correlated among all instruments used in this study. CCT measurements by three pachymeters were statistically different (p < 0.0001). CCT measured by ultrasound pachymetry was lowest (541.7 ± 30.6 μm) whereas those by Tonopachy and Pentacam showed no difference (557.3 ± 34.3 and 558.0 ± 33.7 μm, respectively). Tonopachy overestimated CCT by 13.9 μm when compared with ultrasound pachymetry. There was a statistically significant difference between IOP measurements by two tonometers (p < 0.0001); IOP measurement was higher by Tonopachy than by GAT (13.9 ± 4.2 and 12.5 ± 3.2 mm Hg, respectively). Tonopachy overestimated IOP measurements by 1.2 mm Hg compared with GAT. Intersession agreements for IOP and CCT measurements by Tonopachy were excellent (intraclass correlation, 0.902 and 0.962, respectively) with 95% limits of agreement ranging from -1.4 to 2.2 mm Hg and from -12.9 to 12.1 μm, respectively. Conclusions. Although CCT and IOP measurements obtained by Tonopachy were reproducible and showed close agreement with ultrasound pachymetry and Pentacam, and GAT, careful attention should be paid when comparing Tonopachy CCT measurement to ultrasound pachymetry or its IOP measurement to GAT as the values may not be interchangeable. Tonopachy is a reliable instrument for evaluating CCT and IOP.

AB - Purpose. This study aimed to compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurement by Tonopachy to that by Pentacam and ultrasound pachymetry, and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement to that by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The reproducibility of CCT and IOP measurements by Tonopachy was also evaluated. Methods. In 104 eyes of 104 patients, CCT was measured by Tonopachy, Pentacam, and ultrasound pachymetry, and IOP was measured by Tonopachy and GAT. Each CCT and IOP measurement was compared using Pearson correlation, repeated measures analysis of variance, and Bland-Altman plots. In 30 subjects, CCT and IOP measurements by Tonopachy were repeated to evaluate intrasession and intraobserver variability. Results. Both CCT and IOP measurements were highly correlated among all instruments used in this study. CCT measurements by three pachymeters were statistically different (p < 0.0001). CCT measured by ultrasound pachymetry was lowest (541.7 ± 30.6 μm) whereas those by Tonopachy and Pentacam showed no difference (557.3 ± 34.3 and 558.0 ± 33.7 μm, respectively). Tonopachy overestimated CCT by 13.9 μm when compared with ultrasound pachymetry. There was a statistically significant difference between IOP measurements by two tonometers (p < 0.0001); IOP measurement was higher by Tonopachy than by GAT (13.9 ± 4.2 and 12.5 ± 3.2 mm Hg, respectively). Tonopachy overestimated IOP measurements by 1.2 mm Hg compared with GAT. Intersession agreements for IOP and CCT measurements by Tonopachy were excellent (intraclass correlation, 0.902 and 0.962, respectively) with 95% limits of agreement ranging from -1.4 to 2.2 mm Hg and from -12.9 to 12.1 μm, respectively. Conclusions. Although CCT and IOP measurements obtained by Tonopachy were reproducible and showed close agreement with ultrasound pachymetry and Pentacam, and GAT, careful attention should be paid when comparing Tonopachy CCT measurement to ultrasound pachymetry or its IOP measurement to GAT as the values may not be interchangeable. Tonopachy is a reliable instrument for evaluating CCT and IOP.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960355414&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960355414&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31821896f1

DO - 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31821896f1

M3 - Article

VL - 88

SP - 843

EP - 849

JO - Optometry and Vision Science

JF - Optometry and Vision Science

SN - 1040-5488

IS - 7

ER -