Ex vivo assessment shows rebound tonometry accurately measures intraocular pressure in non-human primates, indicating clinical utility.
Background Accurate measurement of intraocular pressure in non-human primates is of significant importance in veterinary clinical practice, particularly for the prevention, detection, and management of glaucoma in non-human primates. However, no veterinary tonometer is currently designed specifically for non-human primates. Objective To investigate the accuracy of the macaque-specific measurement mode of the iFalcon™ V100 rebound tonometer. Methods IOP was increased stepwise from 5 mmHg to 90 mmHg in 3–5 mmHg increments. At each target pressure, the system was stabilized for 10 s, then the iFalcon™ V100 recorded six consecutive rebound readings and their average. Each step yielded 2–3 such average values. The results were compared with a high-precision invasive pressure sensor. Linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses were performed, and the measurement range was stratified (5–30, 30–60, 60–90 mmHg) for refined assessment. Results The iFalcon™ V100 showed strong positive correlation with the invasive sensor (y = 0.99x + 0.42, R² = 0.99). The mean difference was − 0.036 mmHg (95% limits of agreement: -3.747 to 3.675 mmHg). Within the 5–30 mmHg range, agreement was excellent (mean difference: -0.063 mmHg). Acceptable agreement was maintained up to 90 mmHg. Conclusions This ex vivo study provides an initial assessment of the iFalcon™ V100 rebound tonometer in non-human primate eyes. The device showed good correlation and agreement with an invasive pressure sensor across a wide pressure range. While the sample size was limited, these preliminary findings support the potential of this species-specific measurement mode for IOP assessment in non-human primate research. Further studies with more eyes and in vivo conditions are needed to confirm its reliability and repeatability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: