This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letter  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Corneal Disorders  • Ophthalmological Procedures, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

I read with interest the article by Kniestedt et al¹ in the September 2004 issue of the ARCHIVES. I would like to point out that a statement they made in the "Comment" section is inaccurate, although it does not significantly affect their conclusions. However, it does represent a misconception about applanation tonometry that appears occasionally in peer-reviewed articles as well as in ophthalmology textbooks.

Kniestedt and colleagues state that "Goldmann and Schmidt . . . set the applanation diameter at 3.06 mm so that the effect of corneal elasticity in an ‘average’ cornea would offset the effect of the capillary attraction of tears."¹ In fact, this precise diameter was chosen simply to allow for the conversion from the unit of force used for the applanator tip, gram force, into a unit of manometric pressure, millimeters of mercury.^2-4 No intrinsic corneal property was taken into account to determine this precise diameter.

This can . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Paul M. Tesser, MD, PhD

RELATED LETTER

Applanation Area in Goldmann Applanation Tonometry—Reply
Christoph Kniestedt, Hartmut Kanngiesser, Robert L. Stamper, and Michelle Nee
Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(11):1664.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLE

Dynamic Contour Tonometry: A Comparative Study on Human Cadaver Eyes
Christoph Kniestedt, Michelle Nee, and Robert L. Stamper
Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(9):1287-1293.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT