Abstract
Background
To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by the Icare ONE rebound tonometer (RTONE) and the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) in healthy persons and glaucoma patients in a prospective study, and to investigate the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT).
Methods
Measurements on 126 right eyes were obtained by three equally skilled ophthalmologists with each of the above-mentioned tonometers. In addition, patients measured their own IOP with the RTONE (RTONE(p)). The means and standard deviation for all tonometers were compared. Agreement between the tonometers was calculated using the Bland–Altman method.
Results
A total of 95 (75.3%) patients were able to perform correct self-tonometry. Mean IOPs obtained were 17.1 ± 5.9 mmHg (RTONE performed by ophthalmologist: RTONE (o)), 17.3 ± 5.6 mmHg (RTONE(p)) and 16.5 ± 5.1 mmHg (GAT). Correlation analysis indicated a good correlation between IOP readings obtained using RTONE(o) and RTONE(p) (ρ = 0.916; p < 0.001) and RTONE(o) and GAT (ρ = 0.901; p < 0.001). Bland–Altman analysis revealed a mean difference (bias) between RTONE(o) and RTONE(p), between RTONE(o) and GAT, and between RTONE(p) and GAT of −0.2, 0.6, and 0.8 mmHg, respectively, with 95% limits of agreement of −5.0 to 4.5, –4.4 to 5.6, and −4.6 to 6.1 mmHg, respectively. The difference between RTONE(o) and GAT significantly increased with increasing CCT (ρ = 0.004), with a 10% increase in CCT resulting in a 1.8% increase in the difference.
Conclusions
Measurements obtained with the RTONE, either by an ophthalmologist or by the patient, showed an excellent correlation with those provided by applanation tonometry. RTONE generally tends to overestimate IOP compared to GAT readings and displays a dependence on CCT.
This study was registered with the DRKS (German Clinical Trials Register; www.germanctr.de; DRKS00000478).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is a major risk factor for glaucoma, which causes visual impairment and blindness in millions of patients worldwide [1]. Accurate IOP estimation at various points in time is important to assess the risk for glaucoma and glaucoma progression. Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) is generally considered the “gold standard” for measuring IOP [2]. However, estimation with GAT has disadvantages: it requires a topical anesthetic, a slit lamp, and an experienced tonometrist. It is difficult in children, in patients who are bedridden, and in those with corneal abnormalities.
Icare tonometry is based on the principle of rebound tonometry [3, 4]. In rebound tonometry, a magnetized probe is launched against the eye, using a solenoid. This solenoid detects the motion and impact when the probe collides with the eye and bounces back. The moving magnet in the probe induces voltage in the solenoid, and the motion parameters of the object are monitored. The simplicity of pressure measurement using the Icare rebound tonometer has been documented in a large number of studies. Moreover, Abraham et al. showed that inexperienced examiners are able to obtain valid values [5].
Additional studies have reported high intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of measurement data [6, 7]. Measurement of IOP with rebound tonometry does not require topical anesthesia, minimizes corneal injury, and avoids the risk of cross infection through the use of disposable probes. Eventually, the technology of rebound tonometry could be a good alternative for self-measurement of intraocular pressure.
Recently, the Icare ONE tonometer (RTONE), which is also based on the principle of rebound tonometry, has become available for self-tonometry. The principle of self-tonometry will be of interest to patients requiring frequent monitoring of IOP. It provides the ophthalmologist with IOP measurements taken daily by the patient at routine intervals. Measurement of IOP at night and in supine position is an important diagnostic factor for glaucoma patients and is another possible application of the Icare ONE tonometer.
In our prospective study, we have compared IOP measurements obtained with the RTONE, either by an ophthalmologist or by the patient with GAT readings. Moreover, we also investigated the role of central corneal thickness (CCT) on rebound tonometry. After self-tonometry using the RTONE, patients were requested to complete a questionnaire using a visual analog scale to give their evaluation of the operability, safety, and comfort of the device.
Subjects and methods
This prospective trial included measurements at 126 right eyes (74 eyes with glaucoma disease and 52 eyes without glaucoma) of 126 patients of Caucasian ancestry who visited our department between July 2010 and November 2010 and had given signed and informed consent in writing. The study protocol conformed with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the trial was approved by the local ethics committee.
Measurements
Before measurement of intraocular pressure, all patients underwent a baseline examination, which included measurement of best-corrected visual acuity (EDTRS charts, Lighthouse, Long Island, NY, USA), visual field examination (30–2, Humphrey field analyzer, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA, USA), corneal pachymetry (optical low-coherence reflectometry pachymeter, Haag Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland), estimation of axial length (IOL Master, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany), and examination of the anterior and posterior segments of the eye.
Afterwards, all measurements of intraocular pressure were performed in upright position by three equally skilled ophthalmologists who had completed training in use of all the devices. The methods were always applied in the same order to avoid anomalies through a possible reduction in IOP induced by contact applanation tonometry: RTONE – GAT. Before the pressure measurements, the patients were instructed in self-tonometry and use of the RTONE tonometer. The RTONE used was a induction-based impact tonometer called Icare ONE (Icare Finland Oy, Espoo, Finland). After measurement of IOP by a skilled observer, using the RTONE, the patients measured their own IOP with the RTONE. The GAT was an AT900 Applanation Tonometer (Haag Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland). Measurements with the RTONE were performed without topical anesthesia, while subsequent measurements with GAT were taken after application of one drop of Conjuncain™ (oxybuprocaine 4 mg/ml, Bausch & Lomb, Berlin, Germany) and instillation of fluorescein (Haag Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland) in the tear film.
The IOP value obtained using the RTONE is the result of six consecutive measurements. The display on the device indicates 11 pressure zones between 5 and 50 mmHg (5–7, 7–10, 10–14, 14–18, 18–21, 21–24, 24–27, 27–30, 30–35, 35–40, and 40–50 mmHg). The precise values are stored in the tonometer’s memory and can be transferred via USB cable to a computer using the Icare LINK software. Two adjustable support elements and an eye cup are provided for self-measurement of IOP. Invalid measurements due to a high standard deviation are indicated by a red LED signal, flashing “REPEAT”.
To obtain patient views on general operability, safety, and comfort of IOP measurement with the Icare ONE tonometer, patients were requested to complete a questionnaire using a visual analog scale (range: 1 (excellent) – 5 (poor)) for different subitems (Fig. 1). To assess operability, a subgroup analysis was conducted to establish the patient’s experience with contact lenses or with treatment involving application of eye drops, as recorded in the patient history, age of patient, and mean defect in the visual field.
Statistics
Three measurements were taken with each instrument, the mean of three valid measurements being used for statistical calculation [8]. According to the guidelines of the Icare ONE tonometer, only measurements were considered if those yielded maximum quality displayed automatically by the device.
Complete statistical analysis was performed using Prism software (version 5, GraphPad Software). Descriptive statistics were performed to establish the demographic characteristics of the study population. Descriptive analysis, including mean values and standard deviations of IOP measurements using the above-mentioned instruments, was also performed. As the IOP measurements were not normally distributed (calculated by D´Agostino-Pearson normality test), the differences between the tonometers were evaluated with the Mann–Whitney test, with p values of < 0.05 being considered statistically significant. The calculated Spearman correlation coefficient ρ indicates a high correlation with ρ = 0.7–0.99, a moderate correlation with ρ = 0.4–0.69, and weak correlation with ρ < 0.4. A Bland–Altman analysis was used to assess the bias and 95% limits of agreement between the instruments [9]. In the Bland–Altman analysis, the difference between each IOP measurement was plotted against the mean. Linear regression of the Bland–Altman analysis showed whether any over- or underestimation of IOP had arisen within the measured range. Linear regression of the difference between RTONE and GAT measurements against the estimated CCT showed whether CCT had led to any over- or underestimation of the IOP, as measured by the RTONE, in our study population.
Results
In our study, valid measurements were performed on 126 right eyes of 126 patients. Mean age of all patients, patients with glaucoma, and patients without glaucoma was 61.5 ± 15.2 years, 65.0 ± 14.8 years, and 56.7 ± 14.7 years, respectively. Ninety-five patients were able to perform correct self-tonometry of IOP, whereas 31 patients were not. For the entire series of 126 eyes, the mean IOP obtained was 16.5 ± 5.1 mmHg using the GAT. Measurements with the RTONE revealed a mean IOP of 17.1 ± 5.9 mmHg when the measurement was performed by an ophthalmologist (RTONE (o)) and 17.3 ± 5.6 mmHg when performed by the patient (RTONE (p)). A summary of all variables is given in Table 1.
Correlation analysis indicated an excellent correlation between RTONE(o) and RTONE(p) (ρ = 0.916; p < 0.001), RTONE(o) and GAT (ρ = 0.901; p < 0.001). In 58.7% of the eyes (74/126), IOPs provided by RTONE(o) were higher than GAT measurements. Differences of less than 1 mmHg (2 mmHg) [3 mmHg] with respect to GAT measurements were obtained in 39.7% (66.3%) [80.2%] of readings taken with the RTONE by an ophthalmologist.
Bland–Altman analysis revealed a mean difference (bias) between RTONE(o) and RTONE(p) and between RTONE(o) and GAT, of −0.2 and 0.6 mmHg, respectively, with 95% limits of agreement of −5.0 to 4.5 and −4.4 to 5.6 mmHg, respectively (Fig. 2). Linear regression of the comparisons revealed a proportional error over the range of pressures examined (RTONE(o) vs. RTONE(p): slope = 0.08, p = 0.04; RTONE(o) vs. GAT: slope = 0.15, p = 0.003) (Fig. 2).
The mean CCT for all eyes included in the study was 544.8 ± 43.8 μm, ranging from 452.0 to 635.7 μm. Correlations between the measurements obtained with the rebound tonometer and corneal thickness were weak but statistically significant (RTONE(o): ρ = 0.264, p = 0.009; RTONE(p): ρ = 0.215, p = 0.022). No correlation was detected between GAT and CCT. The difference between RTONE(o) and GAT significantly increased with increasing CCT (p = 0.004), with a 10% increase in CCT resulting in a 1.8% increase in the difference (Fig. 3). Linear regression analysis disclosed that RTONE(o) overestimated IOP in comparison to GAT at higher CCT and underestimated pressure readings at lower CCT (X-intercept = 509.6 μm) (Fig. 3).
Bland–Altman analysis revealed a mean difference (bias) between RTONE(p) and GAT of 0.8 mmHg, with 95% limits of agreement of −4.6 to 6.1 mmHg (Fig. 4). Linear regression of Bland–Altman data of RTONE(p) vs. GAT revealed no proportional error over the range of pressures examined. Other parameters, such as age, sex, or axial length, were not found to correlate with IOP or with the mean difference between tonometers.
With regards to the items listed on the questionnaire, mean and standard deviation of general operability, sense of safety, and comfort of measurement with the Icare ONE tonometer when used by the patient were 2.1 ± 1.0, 1.6 ± 0.8, and 1.7 ± 0.7, respectively. Subgroup analysis of general operability for patients aged 49 years or less, patients aged 50 to 69 years, and 70 or more years revealed a mean value of 1.9 ± 0.7, 2.0 ± 0.8, and 2.4 ± 1.2, respectively. This analysis indicated a significant difference between the subgroups of patients aged 49 or less and those of 50 to 69 years of age, to those aged 70 or more (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively) (Fig. 5). Patients with experience in handling contact lenses gave higher rank for the general operability, though the difference was not significant (p = 0.14) (Fig. 5). Subgroup analysis of patient experience with contact lenses, treatment involving application of eye drops, and mean defect in visual field revealed no significant differences.
Discussion
Several studies have analyzed the accuracy of rebound tonometry compared to applanation tonometry. Whereas some studies report a very good agreement or only a slight difference between IOP values obtained by rebound tonometry and applanation tonometry [5, 10], other studies on different study populations indicate that rebound tonometry tends to overestimate IOP in comparison to measurements by applanation tonometry and particularly contour tonometry despite a very good correlation between the methods [11–16]. In the higher IOP range (GAT > 23 mmHg), rebound tonometry seems to provide more incorrect values than in the IOP range of 7–22 mmHg [15].
Our results indicate that IOP measurements obtained by an ophthalmologist using the Icare ONE tonometer (RTONE(o)) correlate extremely well with those provided by RTONE(p) (ρ = 0.916; p < 0.001) and GAT (ρ = 0.901; p < 0.001). Nevertheless, on Bland–Altman analysis, the RTONE(o) showed a mean tendency to overestimate IOP in comparison to a GAT reading of 0.6 mmHg. In lower IOP ranges (<12 mmHg), the Icare ONE underestimated IOP in relation to the GAT reading, whereas Icare ONE showed an increasing overestimation of IOP in comparison to GAT in IOPs of > 13 mmHg (slope = 0.15, p = 0.0003) (Fig. 2b). RTONE(p) showed a slight tendency to exceed the RTONE(o) readings at 0.2 mmHg.
The influence of CCT on IOP measurements is based on the assumption that thinner corneas will be more deformable and will therefore record artificially low pressures. Reductions in recorded IOP have been reported after LASIK using GAT and rebound tonometry, respectively [17, 18] and PRK using GAT [19]. In vivo studies in which human eyes are cannulated and the IOP set using a water column have demonstrated an error of between 0.4 and 0.7 mmHg per 10 μm difference in CCT with applanation tonometry [20–22]. Correlations between rebound tonometry readings and CCT have been observed in a number of studies [7, 11, 14, 16, 23–25]. Our study revealed a weak but significant correlation between the measurements obtained with the rebound tonometers and CCT (RTONE(o): ρ = 0.264, p = 0.009; RTONE(p): ρ = 0.215, p = 0.022). Further investigations indicated that the difference between RTONE(o) and GAT significantly increased with increasing CCT (p = 0.004), with a 10% increase in CCT resulting in a 1.8% increase in the difference, and that RTONE(o) overestimated IOP values in relation to GAT readings at higher CCT and underestimated them at lower CCT (X-intercept = 509.6 μm) (Fig. 3).
Bland–Altman analyses of IOP data obtained by measurement with the Icare ONE performed by the patient showed only slight and insignificant deviations from the readings obtained by an ophthalmologist with the Icare ONE in our study. Moreover, Bland–Altman analyses of readings obtained with RTONE(o) and RTONE(p) against GAT indicated only minimal deviations for bias and 95% limits of agreement (Figs. 2b and 4). Thus, the Icare ONE tonometer seems to be a precise and reliable tonometer when used by either an ophthalmologist or by a patient.
Self-tonometry has been proposed by many authors and could be of immense socio-economic efficacy in glaucoma management. At the moment, both the contact lens-embedded sensor for IOP monitoring and the Ocuton S self-tonometry device, as well as the hand-held applanation tonometer all have not yet reached clinical routine practice, despite promising preliminary results [26–31]. The potential usefulness of IOP home monitoring using the classic rebound tonometer (Icare) has been described in a few studies. For example, the ease of use and degree of accuracy of this device in inexperienced hands has already been shown [5, 32]. Inexperienced investigators were able to perform rebound tonometry appropriately and the rate of discrepancy was only slightly higher than that seen with experienced observers [5, 6]. Moreover, a high intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility has been shown in school children and adults [6, 7].
Patient evaluation, via our questionnaire, of general operability, sense of safety, and comfort of measurement with the Icare ONE rebound tonometer was excellent. Subgroup analysis of general operability of this device for patients of different age revealed that patients of 70 years or more of age considered the procedure more difficult than younger patients. Though not significant, patients with experience in handling contact lenses seem to be more skilled in using the Icare ONE rebound tonometer.
In conclusion, the Icare ONE tonometer provides pressure measurements that correlate well with those obtained by applanation tonometry. Whether measurements are taken by an ophthalmologist or the patient, the readings obtained with Icare ONE tonometry can be expected to be higher than those determined by GAT, although the differences are relatively small. As in some previous studies on Icare rebound tonometry, the Icare ONE and CCT readings in our study indicated a dependency of Icare ONE tonometry on CCT, however, other trials did not detect a significant correlation between rebound tonometry and CCT [33].
Some theoretical limits of our study have to be taken in account. For practical reasons, the Icare ONE values and GAT were measured by the same investigators in an unmasked fashion. Besides, a pressure-reducing effect of repeated rebound tonometry on an eye can not be categorically ruled out. Moreover, it could be of interest to consider the corneal hysteresis and the corneal radius on the outcome of IOP measurement using the Icare ONE. Possible advantages of this new device are the numerous readings throughout the day, no need for eye drops, and a high acceptance by the patients. Disadvantages and reasons for impreciseness are a learning curve for using the device, possible self-induced corneal trauma, the possibility that IOP readings are not taken at the center of the cornea, and errors in taking the readings. All in all, Icare ONE self-tonometry appears to be a promising method, though its further relevance remains to be evaluated in future studies.
References
Quigley HA (1996) Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol 80:389–393
Kass MA (1996) Standardizing the measurement of intraocular pressure for clinical research. Guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum. Ophthalmology 103:183–185
Kontiola AI (1997) A new electromechanical method for measuring intraocular pressure. Doc Ophthalmol 93:265–276
Danias J, Kontiola AI, Filippopoulos T, Mittag T (2003) Method for the noninvasive measurement of intraocular pressure in mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:1138–1141
Abraham LM, Epasinghe NCR, Selva D, Casson R (2008) Comparison of the Icare® rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer by experienced and inexperience tonometrists. Eye 22:503–506
Sahin A, Basmak H, Niyaz L, Yildirim N (2007) Reproducibility and tolerability of the Icare rebound tonometer in school children. J Glaucoma 16:185–188
Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Castillo A, Garcia-Sanchez J (2005) Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:4578–4580
Dielemans I, Vingerling JR, Hofman A, Grobbee DE, de Jong PT (1994) Reliability of intraocular pressure measurement with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in epidemiological studies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 232:141–144
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310
van der Jagt LH, Jansonius LM (2005) Three portable tonometers, the TGDc-01, the Icare and the Tonopen XL, compared with each other and with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 25:429–435
Iliev ME, Goldblum D, Katsoulis K, Amstutz C, Frueh B (2006) Comparison of rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry and correlation with central corneal thickness. Br J Ophthalmol 90:833–835
Fernandes P, Diaz-Rey JA, Queiros A, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Jorge J (2005) Comparison of the Icare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 25:436–440
Garcia-Resua C, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Gilino J, Yebra-Pimentel E (2006) Accuracy of the new Icare rebound tonometer vs. other portable tonometers in healthy eyes. Optom Vis Sci 83:102–107
Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Vico E, Fernandez-Vidal A, Benitez del Castillo JM, Wasfi M, Garcia-Sanchez J (2006) Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and Goldmann tonometry. Ophthalmology 113:2156–2162
Munkwitz S, Elkarmouty A, Hoffmann EM, Pfeiffer N, Thieme H (2008) Comparison of the Icare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer over a wide IOP range. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 246:875–879
Poostchi A, Mitchell R, Nicholas S, Purdie G, Wells A (2009) The Icare rebound tonometer: comparisons with Goldmann tonometry, and influence of central corneal thickness. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 37:687–691
Emara B, Probst LE, Tingey DP, Kennedy DW, Willms LJ, Machat J (1998) Correlation of intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness in normal myopic eyes and after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:1320–1325
Lam AK, Wu R, Wang Z, Woo V, Chan E, Tam K, Chau R, Wong KK (2010) Effect of laser in situ keratomileusis on rebound tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:631–636
Schipper I, Senn P, Oyo-Szerenyi K, Peter R (2000) Central and peripheral pressure measurements with the Goldmann tonometer and Tono-Pen after photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 26:929–933
Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S (1975) Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol 53:34–43
Kohlhaas M, Boehm AG, Spoerl E, Pürsten A, Grein HJ, Pillunat LE (2006) Effect of central corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and axial length on applanation tonometry. Arch Ophthalmol 124:471–476
Whitacre MM, Stein RA, Hassanein K (1993) The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 115:592–596
Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Saenz-Frances VG, Fernandez-Vidal A, Mendez-Hernandez C, Garcia-Sanchez J (2009) Comparison of rebound tonometer and Goldmann handheld applanation tonometer in congenital glaucoma. J Glaucoma 18:49–52
Pakrou N, Gray T, Mills R, Landers J, Craig J (2008) Clinical comparison of the Icare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma 17:43–47
Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Parisi L (2006) Comparison of Icare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 15:213–217
Sacu S, Vass C, Schemper M, Rainer G (2004) Self-tonometry with the Ocuton S: evaluation of accuracy in glaucoma patients. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 82:405–409
Leonardi M, Leuenberger P, Bertrand D, Bertsch A, Renaud P (2004) First steps toward noninvasive intraocular pressure monitoring with a sensing contact lens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:3113–3117
Leonardi M, Pitchon EM, Bertsch A, Renaud P, Mermoud A (2009) Wireless contact lens sensor for intraocular pressure monitoring: assessment on enucleated pig eyes. Acta Ophthalmol 87:433–437
Hediger A, Kniestedt C, Zweifel S, Knecht P, Funk J, Kanngiesser H (2009) Continuous intraocular pressure measurement: first results with a pressure-sensitive contact lens. Ophthalmologe 106:1111–1115
Draeger J, Schwartz R, Deutsch C, Groenhoff S (1991) Clinical and experimental results with a new fully automatic self-tonometer. Fortschr Ophthalmol 88:304–307
Draeger J, Groenhoff S, Hock B, Klemm M (1993) Optimizing the automatic self-tonometer by an acoustic control signal and changed fixation optics. Ophthalmologe 90:54–57
Asrani S, Chatterjee A, Wallace DK, Santiago-Turla C, Stinnett S (2011) Evaluation of the Icare rebound tonometer as a home intraocular pressure monitoring device. J Glaucoma 20:74–79
Chui WS, Lam A, Chen D, Chiu R (2008) The influence of corneal properties on rebound tonometry. Ophthalmology 115:80–84
Competing interest for all authors
None to declare.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors have full control of all primary data and agree to allow Graefes Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology to review their data upon request.
Clinical trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register; number: DRKS00000478.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rosentreter, A., Jablonski, K.S., Mellein, A.C. et al. A new rebound tonometer for home monitoring of intraocular pressure. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249, 1713–1719 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-011-1785-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-011-1785-7