Goldmann Applanation Tonometry versus Dynamic Contour Tonometry after Vitrectomy with Silicone Oil Endotamponade

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To evaluate the agreement of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in eyes after vitrectomy with silicone oil endotamponade and controls.

Methods: In this prospective comparative study, IOP was measured with GAT and DCT in 30 eyes with oil endotamponade 1–3 days after vitrectomy and 40 untreated controls. In addition, ocular pulse amplitude (OPA), corneal pachymetry (CCT), and axial length (AL) were measured.

Results: GAT values in the oil group were significantly higher compared to control eyes (mean GAT oil 13.6 ± 5.1 mmHg; mean GAT control 10.8 ± 2.1 mmHg; p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in DCT measurements (mean DCT oil 12.0 ± 4.1 mmHg; mean DCT control 11.9 ± 2.9 mmHg; p = 0.9). This led to a significant difference of GAT-DCT between the oil and control group (mean difference of GAT-DCT oil 1.6 ± 4.7 mmHg; mean difference of GAT-DCT control −1.1 ± 2.6 mmHg; p = 0.004). The difference between GAT and DCT was negatively correlated with the mean IOP measured by both methods (r = −0.36, p = 0.02) and positively correlated with CCT only in the control group (r = 0.36, p = 0.02), as well as to AL only in the oil group (r = 0.46, p = 0.01). The OPA did not differ significantly between groups.

Conclusion: GAT and DCT showed a good agreement in control eyes. The difference of GAT and DCT is significantly changed in eyes after vitrectomy with silicone oil endotamponade. Our findings suggest that GAT overestimates IOP in this situation.

KEYWORDS:

• Dynamic contour tonometry
• Goldmann applanation tonometry
• silicone oil
• tamponade
• vitrectomy

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest and have no proprietary interest in any of the materials mentioned in this article.

Ethics approval

Medical Ethical Review Board, University RWTH Aachen.

Additional information

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.