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