Two-position measurement of intraocular pressure by PT100 noncontact tonometry in comparison with Goldmann tonometry

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the precision of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by PT100 noncontact tonometry in a handheld and slit lamp-mounted position in comparison with that of Goldmann applanation tonometry in healthy young adults. METHODS: Sixty eyes from 60 subjects (30 men and 30 women) aged 22 ± 1 (range 20-24) years participated in this study. Triplicate intraocular pressure measurement of a randomly selected eye was obtained by a noncontact tonometer in a handheld and slit lamp-mounted position in a randomized order, with the Goldmann applanation tonometer always performed last. A second measurement session was carried out after one week to assess repeatability. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation of intraocular pressure readings in the first and second session, respectively, with the three techniques were: handheld position, 14.52 ± 3.28 mmHg and 15.26 ± 2.11 mmHg; slit lamp-mounted position, 14.01 ± 2.80 mmHg and 15.16 ± 2.34 mmHg; and Goldmann applanation tonometer, 14.86 ± 3.26 mmHg and 15.16 ± 2.42 mmHg. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the techniques in the intraocular pressure measurements returned (Goldmann applanation tonometer vs handheld and Goldmann applanation tonometer vs slit lamp-mounted). The Goldmann applanation tonometer measured intraocular pressure 0.34 mmHg higher than handheld and 0.85 mmHg higher than slit lamp-mounted in session 1, and in session 2 Goldmann applanation tonometer intraocular pressure measurement was the same as with the slit lamp-mounted method but lower than with the handheld method by 0.11 mmHg. In PT100 handheld vs slit lamp-mounted comparisons, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between intraocular pressure measurements returned by both techniques in sessions 1 and 2. Intrasession and intersession repeatability coefficients for Goldmann applanation tonometer intraocular pressure and slit lamp-mounted intraocular pressure were similar, and better in comparison with those for handheld intraocular pressure. CONCLUSION: The Goldmann applanation tonometer and PT100 noncontact tonometer in both positions studied here are reliable, consistent techniques for measurement of intraocular pressure, and can be used interchangeably for obtaining intraocular pressure values in young normal subjects. Repositioning of the PT100 tonometer from hand-held to slit lamp-mounted improved its precision and reduced variation with respect to the Goldmann applanation tonometer.