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

Evaluation of the New Mobile TGDc-01 Tonometer and Comparison with the Goldmann Applanation Tonometry

Rombold F., Thiel M., Neubauer A. S., Hirneiß C., Kampik A.
Department of Ophthalmology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich

Purpose: We tested patients acceptance and intraocular pressure (IOP) readings of a new digital mobile Tonometer (TGDc-01) and compared these values with Goldmann applanation tonometry. The TGDc-01 measures IOP through the eylid, avoids direct corneal contact, is used without local anaesthetics, is independent from corneal diseases and does not require a slit lamp.
Method: Five measurements with the TGDc-01 and one with Goldmann tonometry in a total of 100 eyes of 100 patients were done by two independent investigators. The influence of pachymetry and lid structure were examined and patients acceptance of both techniques was evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS).
Results: The mean IOP with the TGDc-01 was 15,40 mmHg for investigator 1 and 12,72 mmHg for investigator 2 [4-43 mmHg]. Results of the measurements with Goldmann tonometry showed 17,62 mmHg for investigator 1 and 17,31 mmHg for investigator 2 [9-42 mmHg]. The IOP difference of both methods was highly significant (p<0,001). The intraobserver variability of the TGDc-01 was 29% for investigator 1 and 8% for investigator 2. The mean IOP values of the two investigators with the TGDc-01 differed significantly (p<0,01). The visual analogue scale scores of all patients (100 = maximal comfort, 0 = not acceptable) was 74,8±14,8 for the TGDc-01 compared with 63,0 mm±18,6 for the gol


Zurück | Back