Intraocular Pressure Measurement in Childhood Glaucoma under Standardized General Anaesthesia: The Prospective EyeBIS Study

J Clin Med. 2022 May 18;11(10):2846. doi: 10.3390/jcm11102846.

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using iCare® PRO rebound tonometry (iCare) and Perkins applanation tonometry (Perkins) in childhood glaucoma subjects and healthy children and the influence of anaesthesia depth, age and corneal thickness. Material: Prospective clinical, case-control study of children who underwent an ophthalmologic examination under general anaesthesia according to our protocol. Children were 45.45 ± 29.76 months old (mean ± SD (standard deviation)). Of all children, 54.05% were female. IOP was taken three times (T1−T3), according to duration and the depth of anaesthesia. The order of measurement alternated, starting with iCare. Agreement between the device measurements was evaluated using Bland−Altman analysis. Results: 53 glaucoma subjects and 22 healthy controls. Glaucoma subjects: IOP measured with iCare was at T1: 27.2 (18.1−33.8), T2: 21.6 (14.8−30.6), T3: 20.4 mmHg (14.5−27.0) and Perkins 17.5 (12.0−23.0), 15.5 (10.5−20.5), 15.0 mmHg (10.5−21.0) (median ± IQR (interquartile range)). Healthy controls: IOP with iCare: T1: 13.3 (11.1−17.0), T2: 10.6 (8.1−12.4), T3: 9.6 mmHg (7.7−11.7) and Perkins 10.3 (8.0−12.0), 7.0 (5.5−10.5), 7.0 mmHg (5.5−8.5) (median ± IQR). The median IOP was statistically significantly higher with iCare than with Perkins (p < 0.001) in both groups. The mean difference (iCare and Perkins) was 6.0 ± 6.1 mmHg for T1−T3, 7.3 at T1, 6.0 at T2, 4.9 mmHg at T3. Conclusion: The IOP was the highest in glaucoma subjects and healthy children at T1 (under sedation), independently of the measurement method. iCare always leads to higher IOP compared to Perkins in glaucoma and healthy subjects, regardless of the duration of anesthesia.

Keywords: Perkins tonometry; childhood glaucoma; iCare tonometry; intraocular pressure measurement; standardized anaesthesia.

Grants and funding

This research received no external funding.