Comparative analysis of Maklakov and automated ocular tonometry methods of intraocular pressure measurement

PURPOSE. To study the factors affecting the results of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement by different ocular tonometry methods.

MATERIAL AND METHODS. The study involved 72 patients (128 eyes) aged 22 to 86 years. IOP was measured in all patients using Corvis ST tonometer, Topcon ST-800 pneumotonometer, iCare IC 100 portable tonometer, and Maklakov applanation tonometer. The results of IOP measurements were analyzed depending on the following factors: age, gender, presence of glaucoma or suspicion for glaucoma, presence of refractive errors, axial length of the eye, thickness of the cornea.

RESULTS. The greatest difference in IOP values was observed between the Maklakov method (tonometric IOP) and iCare IC 100 device (true IOP). In some cases (9–22%), tonometric IOP obtained using the Maklakov method was equal or lower than the values obtained with other methods.

Results of the correlation analysis confirmed the high correlation of the IOP values obtained with Topcon CT-800, iCare IC 100 and Corvis. On the other hand, IOP values obtained with the Maklakov method had lower correlation dependence with IOP values obtained using other tono metry methods. The strongest correlation of IOP and corneal thickness was observed when using Topcon CT-800. The IOP value obtained with the Maklakov method had the lowest correlation dependence with corneal thickness.

CONCLUSION. The lowest correlation dependence of Mak lakov IOP measurements with IOP values obtained using Topcon CT-800, iCare IC 100 and Corvis indicates that the reliability of the Maklakov method significantly depends on the compliance with the examination technique.

1. Nesterov A.P. Glaukoma [Glaucoma]. Moscow, Medicine Publ., 1995. 256 p.

2. Galgauskas S., Strupaite R., Strelkauskaite E., Asoklis R. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements with different contact tonometers in young healthy persons. Int J Ophthalmol 2016; 9(1):76-80. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2016.01.13

3. Antonov A.A., Karlova E.V., Brezhnev A.Yu., Dorofeev D.A. Current state of ophthalmic tonometry. Vestnik oftal'mologii 2020; 136(6): 100-107. https://doi.org/10.17116/oftalma2020136061100

4. Kirstein E.M., Elsheikh A., Gunvant P. Tonometry-past, present and future. Glaucoma-Current Clinical and Research Aspects [Internet]. 2011; Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/37393

5. Kurysheva N.I. Organizatsiya oftal'mologicheskoi pomoshchi v usloviyakh pandemii COVID-19. Metodicheskoe posobie dlya vrachei, meditsinskogo personala i klinicheskikh ordinatorov [Organization of ophthalmic care in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methodological guide for doctors, medical personnel and clinical residents]. Moscow, 2020. pp. 20-22. https://doi.org/10.25276/978-5-905926-87-7

6. Stodtmeister R. Applanation tonometry and correction according to corneal thickness. Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica 1998; 76(3): 319-324. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0420.1998.760313.x

7. Korneeva A.V., Kuroedov A.V., Lovpache D.N. et al. Ispol'zovanie pokazatelei tsentral'noi tolshchiny rogovitsy dlya korrektsii rezul'tatov tonometrii [Central corneal thickness to adjust IOP measurements]. RMJ Clinical Ophthalmology 2020; 20(1):15-20. https://doi.org/10.32364/2311-7729-2020-20-1-15-20

8. Galgauskas S., Strupaite R., Strelkauskaite E., Asoklis R. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements with different contact tonometers in young healthy persons. Int J Ophthalmol 2016; 9(1):76-80. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2016.01.13

9. Antonyuk V.D., Kuznetsova T.S. Investigation of corneal biomechanical properties using the CORVIS ST device (Oculus, Germany) in patients with myopia and myopic astigmatism. Ophthalmosurgery 2020; 4:20-28. https://doi.org/10.25276/0235-4160-2020-4-20-28

10. Glaukoma pervichnaya otkrytougol'naya. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii po oftal'mologii [Primary open-angle glaucoma. Clinical guidelines for ophthalmology]. 2022. pp. 14-18.

11. Aldasheva N.A., Zhurgumbaeva G.K., Abysheva L.D. et al. Comparative analysis of intraocular pressure indicators for various types of tonometry. Novosti glaukomy 2015; 33(1):64.

12. Dorofeev D.A., Pozdeeva O.G., Ekgardt V.F. et al. Ophthalmotonometric indicators measured by Maklakov applanation tonometer and rebound tonometer. Otrazhenie 2018; 7(2):27-32. https://doi.org/10.25276/2686-6986-2018-2-27-32

13. Erichev V.P., Panyushkina L.A. Sovremennyi vzglyad na problemu oftal'mogipertenzii [Modern view on ocular hypertension]. Vestnik oftal'mologii 2019; 135(5):305-311. https://doi.org/10.17116/oftalma2019135052305

14. Kurysheva N.I., Ryzhkov P.K., Gusanov D.A., Makeev P.S. Indicators of ophthalmotonus in patients with glaucoma with various methods of tonometry. East – West 2012: 223.

15. Pasenova I.G., Strenev N.V. Comparative analysis of tonometry methods. Euro-Asian ophthtalmosurgery conference. 2015; 75.