Comparison of intraocular pressure in New Zealand White rabbits measured using rebound and applanation tonometers and four different methods of physical restraint

AimsTo compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained in rabbits using rebound (TV) and applanation (TPV) tonometers with four different methods of physical restraint.MethodsA total of 20 New Zealand White rabbits (40 eyes) were included in this study. IOP readings were obtained from both eyes using the two different tonometers. The rabbits were placed on a table and restrained by wrapping in a cloth (Method I), by scruffing with rear support (Method II), by wrapping in a cloth and cupped in the hands (Method III), or by a box restrainer (Method IV).ResultsThe mean IOP measurement obtained by TPV was higher than that obtained with the TV for all handling methods. Mean differences (TV-TPV, in mmHg) in IOP were -5.3 (95% Cl = -6.5 to -4.1) for Method 1, -4.7 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.29) for Method II, -4.9 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.7) for Method III and -7.6 (95% Cl = -9.2 to -5.9) for Method IV. Using the TV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was higher than for Method I (mean difference 2.1 (95% Cl = 1.1-3.1)), whereas using the TPV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was significantly higher than Method I, II, and III (mean differences: 4.4 (95% Cl = 2.6-5.9), 3.7 (95% Cl = 2-5.3) and 3.8 (95% Cl = 2-5.4), respectively). According to Bland-Altman plots, IOP readings for TPV tended to be higher than those for TV with all handling methods, but with a lack of agreement. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement for the differences between TV and TPV were -5.4 mmHg (-12.5-1.9 mmHg), -4.7 mmHg (-12.9-3.5 mmHg), -4.9 mmHg (-12-2.2 mmHg), and -7.5 mmHg (-17.4-2.3 mmHg), with Methods I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Comparing TV and TPV, only 7.5%, 12.5%, 27.5%, and 15% of IOP measurements from 20 rabbits were within the range considered clinically acceptable for IOP (& PLUSMN; 2 mmHg) for Method I, II, III, and IV, respectively.