Programm                 "Degeneration und Regeneration– Grundlagen, Diagnostik und Therapie"


Hotelbuchung
   Hotel Registration
Grußwort
   Welcome address
Beteiligte Gesellschaften
   Societies involved
DOG Information
   DOG Information
Eröffnung des Kongresses
   Opening Ceremony
Preise
   Awards
Ablauf der Tagung 2003
   General overview of congress
Lageplan der Räumlichkeiten
   Map of Congress Center
Wissenschaftliche Themen
   Scientific topics
Symposien
   Symposia
Wissenschaftliches Programm
   Scientific program
Posterpräsentationen
   Poster Presentation
Kurse
   Courses
Begleitende Veranstaltungen
   Accompanying program
Arbeitssitzungen
   Working sessions
Rahmenprogramm
   Social program
Allgemeine Informationen
   General Information
Autorenindex
   Index of Authors
Industrieaussteller
   Commercial exhibitors
Sponsoren
   Sponsors
Impressum



DOG Homepage


Abstract
Abstract

Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements with the Digital Tonometer TGDc-01 ”PRA” and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer

Meyer M. W., Schroeder A., Ruefer F., Erb C.
Augenklinik der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover

Purpose: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the digital portable tonometer TGDc-01 ”PRA”, which measures the IOP through the upper eyelid, with those from Goldmann applanation tonometer in a sitting position.
Method: The IOP in 176 eyes of 88 healthy volunteers was measured prospectively in a sitting position. The measurement, generated by the TGDc-01 ”PRA”, was compared with a single reading from a Goldmann applanation tonometer. Because of the dynamic effect of the TGDc-01 ”PRA” on the eye we used Goldmann tonometer first and the TGDc-01 ”PRA” second to prevent measuring errors. The same instruments were used and the sequence of measurements was not changed.
Results: TGDc-01 “PRA” mean IOP values (13.0 ± 3.7 mmHg; range, 4 to 22 mmHg) underestimated those of Goldmann applanation tonometry (14.9 ± 3.2 mmHg; range, 8 to 27 mmHg). The mean difference was 1.9 mmHg with a standard deviation of 2.8 mmHG and this was statistically significant (P <0.001, paired t test). Fourty-two percent of the measurements were within the ± 1 mmHg difference range, 59.6 % were within ± 2 mmHg and 77.2 % were within ± 3 mmHG. A comparison between the results of the two techniques gave a correlation coefficient of 0.683.
Conclusions: The use of the TGDc-01 “PRA” is simple and it is non-invasive and portable. In comparison to the


Zurück | Back