Modified Goldmann prism intraocular pressure measurement accuracy and correlation to corneal biomechanical metrics: multicentre randomised clinical trial

Sean Joseph McCafferty, Kyle Tetrault, Ann McColgin, Warren Chue, Jason Levine, Melissa Muller, Sean Joseph McCafferty, Kyle Tetrault, Ann McColgin, Warren Chue, Jason Levine, Melissa Muller

Abstract

Purpose: Clinically evaluate intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements taken with a Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) prism and a modified surface Goldmann prism examining measurement differences correlated to central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal hysteresis (CH) values.

Design: Prospective, open-label, randomised, controlled, multicentre reference device accuracy analysis.

Methods: A GAT and a modified surface GAT prism measured IOP on 243 unique eyes. The study design and methodology complied with International Standard Organization (ISO) tonometer evaluation guidelines, except the inclusion of thin (<500 µm) and thick (>600 µm) corneas. All eyes were randomised to IOP measurement by one of five standard Goldmann prisms and five modified prisms. Pressures were measured by six investigators, two times with each prism for a total of 1936 IOP measurements. Analysis included a multiple linear regression including CCT and CH correlation.

Results: The difference in IOP measurements of the standard and modified Goldmann prisms correlated well to CCT particularly in thin (<500 µm) and thick (>600 µm) corneas (R2=0.404, p=0.007). Corneal hysteresis (CH) also significantly correlated to the difference in prism measurements (R2=0.125, p=0.039). There was no significant overall mean IOP bias between the two prisms (+0.43 mm Hg in modified, p=0.19).

Discussion: The paired IOP measurement difference between GAT and a modified surface Goldmann replacement prism indicated a statistically significant correlation to CCT and CH. A simple modified replacement prism for any Goldmann-type tonometer may significantly improve IOP measurement accuracy by minimising corneal biomechanical errors associated with CCT and CH.

Trial registration number: NCT02990169 and NCT02989909.

Keywords: Cornea; Glaucoma; Intraocular pressure; central corneal thickness; corneal biomechanics; corneal hysteresis; tonometry.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The submitted manuscript was completed by referencing studies funded by an NIH/NEI SBIR grant, 1R43 EY026821-01. Requirements of this grant are commercialisation of potentially beneficial ophthalmic/optometric medical devices/products. The commercialisation necessitates intellectual property and a company to produce the product. Commonly in new technology start-up companies, the corresponding author is also part owner in the intellectual property and the associated company (Intuor Technologies) producing the medical device. This is a conflict of interest. However, the authors attest to the stringent efforts made to provide unbiased information provided in this manuscript. We believe, as does the NIH and ASCRS, that the tonometer device has a potential to bring considerable value to the ophthalmic medical community and their patients.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Applanating surface of the centrally concave and annularly convex (CATS) prism.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Scatter plot of the average intraocular pressure (IOP) values for GAT and modified (CATS) prisms from each of the 243 measurements along with a reference x=y line.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Measured intraocular pressure (IOP) difference between modified (CATS) minus GAT correlated to central corneal thickness, 95% CI on average mean difference and slope indicated by dashed lines.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Paired differences (CATS–GAT) between thin (600 µm) cornea groups compared using a two-sample Student’s t-test on the means. CCT, central corneal thickness; IOP, intraocular pressure.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Measured intraocular pressure (IOP) difference between modified (CATS) minus GAT correlated to corneal hysteresis, 95% CI on average mean difference and slope indicated by dashed lines.

References

    1. Chan MPY, Broadway DC, Khawaja AP, et al. . Glaucoma and intraocular pressure in EPIC-Norfolk eye study: cross sectional study. BMJ 2017;358 10.1136/bmj.j3889
    1. Susanna R, De Moraes CG, Cioffi GA, et al. . Why do people (still) go blind from glaucoma? Transl Vis Sci Technol 2015;4:1–10. 10.1167/tvst.4.2.1
    1. Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:146–55. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.09.031
    1. Schallhorn JM, Schallhorn SC, Ou Y. Factors that influence intraocular pressure changes after myopic and hyperopic LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy: a large population study. Ophthalmology 2015;122:471–9. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.09.033
    1. Tsai ASH, Loon SC. Intraocular pressure assessment after laser in situ keratomileusis: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2012;40:295–304. Vol. 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2011.02641.x
    1. Giangiacomo A, Beck A. Pediatric glaucoma: review of recent literature. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2017;28:199–203. 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000349
    1. Feng CS, Jin KW, Yi K, et al. . Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by rebound, noncontact, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in children. Am J Ophthalmol 2015;160:937–43. 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.07.029
    1. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. . The ocular hypertension treatment study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:701–13.
    1. Iester M, Mete M, Figus M, et al. . Incorporating corneal pachymetry into the management of glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:1623–8. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.05.015
    1. Kotecha A, Elsheikh A, Roberts CR, et al. . Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:5337–47. 10.1167/iovs.06-0557
    1. Whitacre MM, Stein R. Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol 1993;38:1–30. 10.1016/0039-6257(93)90053-A
    1. Damji KF, Muni RH, Munger RM. Influence of corneal variables on accuracy of intraocular pressure measurement. J Glaucoma 2003;12:69–80. 10.1097/00061198-200302000-00015
    1. Park SJK, Ang GS, Nicholas S, et al. . The effect of thin, thick, and normal corneas on Goldmann intraocular pressure measurements and correction formulae in individual eyes. Ophthalmology 2012;119:443–9. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.07.058
    1. Brandt JD, Gordon MO, Gao F, et al. . Adjusting intraocular pressure for central corneal thickness does not improve prediction models for primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2012;119:437–42. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.03.018
    1. McCafferty S, Lim G, Duncan W, et al. . Goldmann tonometer prism with an optimized error correcting applanation surface. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2016;5:4–5. 10.1167/tvst.5.5.4
    1. McCafferty S, Lim G, Duncan W, et al. . Goldmann tonometer error correcting prism: clinical evaluation. Clin Ophthalmol 2017;11:835–40. 10.2147/OPTH.S135272
    1. McCafferty S, Levine J, Schwiegerling J, et al. . Goldmann applanation tonometry error relative to true intracameral intraocular pressure in vitro and in vivo. BMC Ophthalmol 2017;17 10.1186/s12886-017-0608-y
    1. McCafferty S, Levine J, Schwiegerling J, et al. . Goldmann and error correcting tonometry prisms compared to intracameral pressure. BMC Ophthalmol 2018;18 10.1186/s12886-017-0668-z
    1. McCafferty S, Enikov E, Schwiegerling J, et al. . Goldmann tonometry tear-film error and partial correction with a shaped applanation surface. Clin Ophthal 2018;12:71–8. 10.2147/OPTH.S152492
    1. McCafferty S, Tetrault K, McColgin A, et al. . Intraocular pressure measurement accuracy and repeatability of a modified Goldmann prism: multicenter randomized clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol 2018;196:145–53. 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.08.051
    1. Kohlhaas M, Boehm AG, Spoerl E. Effect of central corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and axial length on applanation tonometry. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:471–6. 10.1001/archopht.124.4.471
    1. American Academy of Ophthalmology, preferred practice pattern. Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma 2015.
    1. Eisenberg D, Sherman B, Mckeown C, et al. . Tonometry in adults and children: a manometric evaluation of pneumotonometry, applanation, and TonoPen in vitro and in vivo. Ophthalmol 1998;105:1173–81.
    1. Medeiros FA, Meira-Freitas D, Lisboa R, et al. . Corneal hysteresis as a risk factor for glaucoma progression: a prospective longitudinal study. Ophthalmology 2013;120:1533–40. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.032
    1. Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Is corneal thickness an independent risk factor for glaucoma? Ophthalmology 2012;119:435–6. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.01.018
    1. Touboul D, Roberts C, Kérautret J, et al. . Correlations between corneal hysteresis, intraocular pressure, and corneal central pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:616–22. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.11.051

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel