Comparative Evaluation of Classic Mechanical and Digital Goldmann Applanation Tonometers
<b>Objectives</b>: The objective of this study was to evaluate the agreement and clinical interchangeability of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the mechanical Haag-Streit AT900 Goldmann applanation tonometer (mGAT) and the digital Huvitz HT5000 applanation tonometer...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | Diagnostics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/14/1813 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849734052205035520 |
|---|---|
| author | Assaf Kratz Ronit Yagev Avner Belkin Mordechai Goldberg Alon Zahavi Ivan Goldberg Ahed Imtirat |
| author_facet | Assaf Kratz Ronit Yagev Avner Belkin Mordechai Goldberg Alon Zahavi Ivan Goldberg Ahed Imtirat |
| author_sort | Assaf Kratz |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <b>Objectives</b>: The objective of this study was to evaluate the agreement and clinical interchangeability of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the mechanical Haag-Streit AT900 Goldmann applanation tonometer (mGAT) and the digital Huvitz HT5000 applanation tonometer (dGAT). <b>Methods</b>: This retrospective comparative study included 53 eyes of 28 patients undergoing routine ophthalmologic evaluation. Each eye underwent IOP measurement using both mGAT and dGAT in a randomized sequence. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was also recorded. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to determine correlation between paired IOP measurements. Bland–Altman plots were graphed for the analysis of differences for IOP between the instruments. <b>Results</b>: A total of 53 eyes of 28 patients (15 males) were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 62.6 years. The mean mGAT and dGAT measurements were 16.3 ± 6.6 mmHg (range 9–50) and 16.4 ± 6.2 mmHg (range 8.8–45.9), respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.53). A strong, significant positive correlation was found for paired IOP measurements by the two instruments (r = 0.98; <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Bland–Altman analysis revealed 95% limits of agreement from −2.5 to +2.3 mmHg, with a small but statistically significant proportional bias favoring mGAT at higher IOP levels. Additionally, 91% of paired measurements were within ±2 mmHg. CCT-related differences were statistically and clinically insignificant. <b>Conclusions</b>: IOP measurements obtained with mGAT and dGAT were highly correlated and clinically interchangeable for the range tested. The Huvitz HT5000 may serve as a reliable alternative to the classic Goldmann tonometer in routine clinical settings. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-7f0cfe28afed42d98e106c7d588d0a5f |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2075-4418 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-07-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Diagnostics |
| spelling | doaj-art-7f0cfe28afed42d98e106c7d588d0a5f2025-08-20T03:07:54ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182025-07-011514181310.3390/diagnostics15141813Comparative Evaluation of Classic Mechanical and Digital Goldmann Applanation TonometersAssaf Kratz0Ronit Yagev1Avner Belkin2Mordechai Goldberg3Alon Zahavi4Ivan Goldberg5Ahed Imtirat6Department of Ophthalmology, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva 84101, IsraelDepartment of Ophthalmology, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva 84101, IsraelDepartment of Ophthalmology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba 4428164, IsraelOphthalmology Department, The Eisenberg R&D Authority, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem 9103102, IsraelThe Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 39040, IsraelGlaucoma Unit, Sydney Eye Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2001, AustraliaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva 84101, Israel<b>Objectives</b>: The objective of this study was to evaluate the agreement and clinical interchangeability of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the mechanical Haag-Streit AT900 Goldmann applanation tonometer (mGAT) and the digital Huvitz HT5000 applanation tonometer (dGAT). <b>Methods</b>: This retrospective comparative study included 53 eyes of 28 patients undergoing routine ophthalmologic evaluation. Each eye underwent IOP measurement using both mGAT and dGAT in a randomized sequence. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was also recorded. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to determine correlation between paired IOP measurements. Bland–Altman plots were graphed for the analysis of differences for IOP between the instruments. <b>Results</b>: A total of 53 eyes of 28 patients (15 males) were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 62.6 years. The mean mGAT and dGAT measurements were 16.3 ± 6.6 mmHg (range 9–50) and 16.4 ± 6.2 mmHg (range 8.8–45.9), respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.53). A strong, significant positive correlation was found for paired IOP measurements by the two instruments (r = 0.98; <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Bland–Altman analysis revealed 95% limits of agreement from −2.5 to +2.3 mmHg, with a small but statistically significant proportional bias favoring mGAT at higher IOP levels. Additionally, 91% of paired measurements were within ±2 mmHg. CCT-related differences were statistically and clinically insignificant. <b>Conclusions</b>: IOP measurements obtained with mGAT and dGAT were highly correlated and clinically interchangeable for the range tested. The Huvitz HT5000 may serve as a reliable alternative to the classic Goldmann tonometer in routine clinical settings.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/14/1813intraocular pressureapplanation tonometryGoldmann tonometerdigital tonometrydevice comparison |
| spellingShingle | Assaf Kratz Ronit Yagev Avner Belkin Mordechai Goldberg Alon Zahavi Ivan Goldberg Ahed Imtirat Comparative Evaluation of Classic Mechanical and Digital Goldmann Applanation Tonometers Diagnostics intraocular pressure applanation tonometry Goldmann tonometer digital tonometry device comparison |
| title | Comparative Evaluation of Classic Mechanical and Digital Goldmann Applanation Tonometers |
| title_full | Comparative Evaluation of Classic Mechanical and Digital Goldmann Applanation Tonometers |
| title_fullStr | Comparative Evaluation of Classic Mechanical and Digital Goldmann Applanation Tonometers |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Evaluation of Classic Mechanical and Digital Goldmann Applanation Tonometers |
| title_short | Comparative Evaluation of Classic Mechanical and Digital Goldmann Applanation Tonometers |
| title_sort | comparative evaluation of classic mechanical and digital goldmann applanation tonometers |
| topic | intraocular pressure applanation tonometry Goldmann tonometer digital tonometry device comparison |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/14/1813 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT assafkratz comparativeevaluationofclassicmechanicalanddigitalgoldmannapplanationtonometers AT ronityagev comparativeevaluationofclassicmechanicalanddigitalgoldmannapplanationtonometers AT avnerbelkin comparativeevaluationofclassicmechanicalanddigitalgoldmannapplanationtonometers AT mordechaigoldberg comparativeevaluationofclassicmechanicalanddigitalgoldmannapplanationtonometers AT alonzahavi comparativeevaluationofclassicmechanicalanddigitalgoldmannapplanationtonometers AT ivangoldberg comparativeevaluationofclassicmechanicalanddigitalgoldmannapplanationtonometers AT ahedimtirat comparativeevaluationofclassicmechanicalanddigitalgoldmannapplanationtonometers |