Disposable versus non-disposable tonometer prisms: a UK national survey

To determine the prevalence of disposable tonometer versus non-disposable tonometer use in the UK and to determine methods of decontamination and frequency of replacement of prisms.A total of 137 ophthalmology departments were interviewed by telephone using a structured questionnaire. The main outcome measured were:types of tonometer prisms used in clinic (disposable, non-disposable and/or other)average disposable prisms used per clinic sessionaverage lifespan of non-disposable prismsprism preference by glaucoma and other teams within department.A cost and benefit analysis was then performed on the data acquired.

One hundred and fifty-five departments were identified for the survey. Of these, 137 (88.3%) responded. Eighty-one departments (59.1%) used Tonosafe prisms alone, whereas 22 departments (16.1%) used Goldmann non-disposable prisms exclusively. Thirty-five departments (64%) on average have a change rate of 26.5% per year (range: 0-100, median: 20) attributed to damage, loss or theft. Sixteen departments (29%) reported that prisms were used until damaged or lost. Four departments (7%) were uncertain of their prism usage and could not provide further information.

Majority of eye departments in the UK opt for disposable prisms. This survey shows the perceived cost-effectiveness of disposable prisms is overestimated when the true cost of disinfection and damage is taken into account. Significant cost savings coupled with the low risk of infectivity (if decontaminated properly) should prompt clinicians and ophthalmic departments worldwide to reconsider the use of non-disposable prisms.