Mario Zulauf | PubMed Health

PubMed2005

Menstrual cycle-dependent differences between right and left visual hemifields in perimetry.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of the menstrual cycle and gender on right and left visual hemifields in healthy subjects. METHODS: One randomly selected eye from each of 42 healthy normally menstruating women and of 37 men with no systemic and ocular problems, other than refractive error, were included in the study. Subjects underwent complete ocular examination and standard acromatic perimetric (SAP) and short-wavelength automated perimetric (SWAP) analysis in both follicular (7th to 10th day of the cycle) and luteal phases (days 3 to 7 before the menstrual bleeding) of the menstrual cycle. Visual field analysis was performed using Model 750 Humphrey Field Analyzer II (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA) with full-threshold, central 30-2 program. RESULTS: The mean age of female (n = 42) and the male subjects (n = 37) were 35.2 +/- 3.1 years and 34.8 +/- 2.9 years, respectively (p = 0.58). Neither females nor males showed any statistically significant differences in the right and left hemifield tests with SAP (both p values > 0.05). However, using SWAP, in luteal phase of female subjects, left hemifield sensitivity was significantly less than (with a mean of 0.47 dB) right hemifield. In follicular phase, there was no significant interhemifield difference (p > 0.05). Male subjects did not show any significant differences between the sensitivity of the two hemifields with SWAP tests. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a significant difference between the mean SWAP sensitivity of right and left visual hemifields in luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In case of a suspected hemifield difference, SAP rather than SWAP may be used to confirm suspected neurological defects as SAP is not affected by the menstrual cycle.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Normal values of short-wavelength automated perimetry.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP, i.e., blue-yellow) in normal volunteers and to review the current normal values provided by the manufacturer. METHODS: 28 eyes of 28 normal subjects (age range 21-48 years, mean age 36.5 years) had SWAP (Octopus 101, two phases of program G2, Interzeag AG, Schlieren, Switzerland). All subjects had normal eye examinations, refractive errors with spherical equivalents <5 diopters and astigmatism <2 diopters, normal intraocular pressures, no history of diseases affecting the visual field or nerve fiber layer, and normal white-white automated perimetry (Octopus 101, program G2). RESULTS: 21% of the subjects (6/28) had to be excluded since visual field testing was not reliable (reliability factor >5%). With the normal values provided by the manufacturer, only 45% of the remaining subjects (10/22) had all other indices within normal limits. With the appropriate normal values based on the multicenter SWAP Octopus 101 study, 11% (3/28) were beyond the normal range: all had abnormal high sensitivities - 2 due to false-positive response. The normal value range for the index Mean Defect is remarkably wide (5.-, median, 95.- percentile: -4.4, -0.5, +5.3 dB, respectively). The normal value range for the index Loss Variance is surprisingly low and similar to standard perimetry (5.-, median, 95.- percentile: -1.7, 6.8, +21.2 dB(2), respectively). CONCLUSION: SWAP with the Octopus G2 program reaches appropriate specificity but only if the correct normal values of the multicenter SWAP Octopus 101 study are used. The variability between subjects is remarkably large. The variability within a visual field is similar for SWAP and standard perimetry as reflected by similar values for the visual field index Loss Variance. Further studies have to establish the sensitivity to detect a disease for SWAP on the Octopus 101.

Adult↗