Despite numerous studies and publications, ophthalmologists frequently do not make an association between IOP and corneal thickness. A wide choice of instruments is now available to measure IOP. Goldmann applanation tonometry is widely accepted as the international gold standard for measurement of IOP and is the most commonly used method.
12 However, its use provides only an estimate. Its accuracy depends on many factors.
13 Goldmann predicted that applanation tonometry would be affected by differences in CCT
14 but believed that there would only rarely be significant variations in CCT from the mean of 500 μm. Several studies have examined the variation of CCT in eyes of different patient groups, especially those with ocular hypertension (OHT), normal-tension glaucoma (NTG), and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CCT has been shown to be increased in patients with OHT.
3 4 5 6 7 8 Eyes in patients with a diagnosis of NTG have been found to have a lower mean CCT than that of patients with POAG.
6 7 9 10 11 Eyes with thicker corneas than normal (as in patients with OHT), may have IOP overestimated. Similarly, eyes with thinner than average corneas (such as those in patients with NTG) may have IOP underestimated.
Obviously, this has important implications in diagnosis and management. It is thus especially important that we know how much different tonometers are affected by different corneal thicknesses, so that we can make appropriate allowances. Furthermore, with the potential risk of transmission of prion proteins, there is a move toward using disposable tonometer heads or protective coverings. In many clinics in Europe, ophthalmologists are switching to the Tono-Pen because of the protection offered by the disposable sheaths. Similarly, the OBF comes with a disposable head and offers the same advantage. If pressures recorded by different instruments in the same patient are to be considered, it is important that we compare these instruments and ascertain the extent to which each may be affected by variables such as corneal thickness.
Shah et al. compared manometric intracameral pressure against Tono-Pen recordings and demonstrated that the Tono-Pen is only slightly affected by corneal thickness (Shah, American Academy of Ophthalmology, New Orleans 1998). Feltgen et al.
15 compared the Perkins (Clement Clarke International, UK) and Tono-Pen against manometric measurements and found that the two instruments correlated well and their IOP measurements did not increase significantly with increasing CCT. This corresponds with the findings of our study, in which the slope of the readings (IOP versus CCT) was flattest with the Tono-Pen. Although it was comparatively steeper with the Goldmann tonometer, the difference was not statistically significant. The steeper slopes for the OBF pneumotonometer indicate that it is affected significantly by CCT. It therefore implies that the two applanation instruments are affected less than the contact pneumotonometer.
The Tono-Pen is a small, computerized, handheld instrument that operates on the MacKay Marg principle. It is thought to be relatively unaffected by corneal surface abnormalities,
16 unless these are gross (e.g., band keratopathy or glued corneas).
17 Previous studies have shown the Tono-Pen to compare favorably with Goldmann tonometry in normal corneas
18 19 20 and within normal IOP ranges. Recently, a new instrument has become available to measure IOP by contact pneumotonometry, the OBF pneumotonometer. This is a modified version of that first described by Langham
21 and allows measurement of IOP, pulse rate, pulse amplitude, and pulsatile ocular blood flow. The principle of action and the calculation of IOP are complex and are described in detail elsewhere.
22 Essentially, the cornea is applanated by a force that is proportional to the initial IOP but is not measured by the pneumotonometer. The resistance to the airflow through the center of the tonometer is then measured.
Theoretically, it has been claimed that the calculation of IOP by pneumotonometers is not affected by CCT, because flexural rigidity of the cornea can be ignored.
23 Measurements with the OBF pneumotonometer have been shown to be reproducible,
24 and it has been shown to correspond well with the Goldmann tonometer in patients without corneal disease,
25 not considering CCT. Although in theory the OBF pneumotonometer should not be affected by CCT, the results of this study suggest otherwise. This probably reflects the mechanism by which it measures IOP. During measurment, the tip of the pneumotonometer is applanated to the cornea. Gas at constant pressure flows down a central hollow tube, pushing against a terminal membrane, deforming the cornea. The gas then escapes into the atmosphere. The resistance offered to the gas is measured as the IOP. This resistance is determined by the IOP and the corneal elastic forces (including CCT).
21 Unlike the Goldmann and Tono-Pen instruments, with which the balance of applanating forces on the one hand and IOP and corneal rigidity on the other are the end points of measurement, with the pneumotonometer, the pressure of the air flow has to exceed this equilibrium, to escape. Hence, it is likely that corneal thickness affects the measurements and also that the readings will be higher than recorded by the other instruments. This was indeed what we observed in this study.
In our study, all three instruments were affected by CCT to various degrees. The Tono-Pen appeared to be least affected by different corneal thicknesses and the OBF pneumotonometer appeared to be most affected. There was no statistically significant difference between the readings of the Tono-Pen and the Goldmann tonometers. Another study testing the Tono-Pen with various CCTs shows that IOP increases by 0.29 mm Hg in males and 0.12 mm Hg in females, per 10-μm increase in CCT.
26
The Goldmann tonometer was the easiest instrument to calibrate, whereas there was no external check possible on the accuracy of the Tono-Pen calibration system because of the instrument’s design. The OBF pneumotonometer was the most difficult, uncomfortable, and time-consuming instrument to use, whereas the Goldmann tonometer and Tono-Pen subjectively appeared similar in ease of use for the operator and the comfort of the patient.
We acknowledge that we did not measure astigmatism before measuring IOP and that this may have some impact on the results obtained from the Goldmann tonometer. Another limitation could be that the instruments were used in random order rather than in the same order and with different operators. However, the large number of patients sampled in the study is likely to mitigate the potential effects of these variables.
These findings serve to highlight that IOP measurement alone may be misleading. IOP may need adjustment in patients with CCTs that differ from the population mean. In addition it is important to note that each instrument tested was affected by CCT to differing degrees. These results have important implications in the choice of tonometer for use in patients with different corneal thicknesses in midpressure ranges. Because the Tono-Pen was relatively easy to use and least affected by thickness of various corneas, it seems to be the instrument to use in these patients.
The authors thank OBF Laboratories for loaning the pneumotonometer used in this study.