SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “PERIMETRY”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1993

Comparison of high-pass resolution perimetry and pattern discrimination perimetry to conventional perimetry in glaucoma.

We compared two new perimetric techniques, high-pass resolution perimetry and pattern discrimination perimetry, to conventional automated static perimetry in an ongoing prospective study. Forty-eight patients with open-angle glaucoma whose median age was 63.4 (range 15.6 to 89.7) years were included in the study. There was a significant correlation between the results obtained with high-pass resolution perimetry and conventional perimetry for both the whole field and the four quadrants (p < 0.001). However, the correlation between pattern discrimination perimetry and conventional perimetry was poor. The differences between the correlations of the newer techniques with conventional perimetry were statistically significant for the whole field and the superior quadrants (p < 0.01) and were borderline significant for the inferior quadrants. Although the three techniques showed very good concordance in both the extent and location of damage of the visual field in some patients, in others it was poor. Our results show that high-pass resolution perimetry and pattern discrimination perimetry may be measuring different components of the visual response.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

[Comparitive study of the threshold variability between blue-on-yellow perimetry and white-on-white perimetry].

PURPOSE: To compare the threshold variability of blue-on-yellow (B/Y) perimetry with white-white(W/W) perimetry, and evaluate the reproducibility of B/Y perimetry. METHODS: The B/Y perimetry and W/W perimetry in the Octopus 101 perimetry were used to examine the visual fields of 12 normal subjects (24 eyes), 16 cases (32 eyes) of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG), and 7 cases (14 eyes) of suspected POAG respectively. The B/Y perimetry and W/W perimetry were repeated to examine within 2 weeks. The point by point threshold variability of the two perimetries were compared and analysed. RESULTS: The total mean threshold variability for B/Y perimetry (2.61 +/- 0.94) dB was greater than that for W/W perimetry (2.11 +/- 0.90) dB in all subjects, but it had no significance (P = 0.6244). The total mean threshold variability for B/Y perimetry (2.07 +/- 0.54) dB was significantly greater than that for W/W perimetry (1.50 +/- 0.34) dB in normal subjects (P = 0.0006), while no significance was found in suspected POAG and POAG groups between the two perimetries (P = 0.0523 and 0.9371). The threshold variability in the areas of some eccentricities for B/Y perimetry were significantly greater than that for W/W perimetry in normal subjects and suspected POAG group, but no significance was found in POAG group for all eccentricities between the two perimetries. CONCLUSION: The threshold variability for B/Y perimetry was greater than that for W/W perimetry in normal subjects, but no significance was found in suspected POAG and POAG between the two perimetries.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

[Short-wavelength perimetry in diagnosis of early glaucoma: comparison with standard automated perimetry].

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of short-wavelength automated perimetry in the diagnosis of early glaucoma. METHODS: Fourty-six eyes of 36 patients with early open angle glaucoma and a group of 38 normal persons (46 eyes) were examined both by the standard automated (white-on-white, W/W) perimeter and short-wavelength (blue-on-yellow, B/Y) perimeter. The age and sex in two groups were matched. The program 24 - 2 was performed on both B/Y and W/W fields in two groups. The mean light sensitivity (MS) of the central 25 degrees and in each quadrant from two perimetries was calculated and analyzed statistically by Student t-test and ASNOV. RESULTS: The difference of MS in central 25 degrees between two perimetries in normal group was 1.63 dB which showed a statistical significance of difference (t = 3.57, P < 0.001). MS was significantly higher in W/W than that in B/Y either in central 25 degrees or in each corresponding quadrant (t = 3.45, P < 0.001). The MS difference between them was more than 2.87 dB and the MS average difference of the corresponding quadrant was more than 2.5 dB (t = 4.57, 3.42, P < 0.001). MS from four quadrants were different from one other. The lowest MS was in the superior temporal, the highest MS was in inferior nasal quadrant; the superior nasal and inferior temporal were in between them. The defects in B/Y perimetry were larger and deeper than that in W/W perimetry. The result of corrected deviation points (u = 3.22, P < 0.05) was used to account the defected testing points, which showed the defected points were significantly more in B/Y perimetry than that in W/W perimetry (chi(2) = 226.72, P < 0.001). The data revealed that the defected testing points from B/Y perimetry were 2.6 times of that from W/W perimetry. In the early glaucoma group, the positive rate in the abnormal visual field from B/Y perimetry was 87% (40/46) and that from W/W perimetry, 67% (31/46). CONCLUSIONS: A good coincidence is demonstrated between B/Y and W/W perimetries both in normal and in early open angle glaucoma groups. B/Y perimetry is more sensitive than W/W perimetry in detecting early glaucomatous visual field defects. The positive rate is higher and the defects are larger and deeper in B/Y perimetry than that in W/W perimetry. Therefore, B/Y perimetry can detect glaucoma defects earlier. It is suggested that B/Y perimetry be applied in diagnosing early glaucoma.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Test-retest variability of blue-on-yellow perimetry is greater than white-on-white perimetry in normal subjects.

PURPOSE: To compare long-term fluctuation of blue-on-yellow automated perimetry with white-on-white automated perimetry in normal subjects. METHODS: White-on-white and blue-on-yellow automated perimetry were performed on a Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer and an Octopus perimeter, both modified for blue-on-yellow perimetry. The study sample consisted of 31 eyes of 31 normal subjects for the Humphrey perimeter and 33 eyes of 33 normal subjects for the Octopus perimeter. After one practice session, each subject completed four testing sessions over a period of 2 to 8 weeks, each separated by at least 1 day. Each testing session consisted of both white-on-white and blue-on-yellow perimetry performed on one eye; the order of the tests was alternated for successive sessions. Long-term fluctuation (expressed as statistical variance) was calculated for each test location. Intersubject variability (expressed as statistical variance) across all subjects was determined for each test location. RESULTS: On the Humphrey perimeter, the long term fluctuation for blue-on-yellow perimetry (4.07 +/- 3.07 dB2) was significantly greater than that for white-on-white perimetry (1.97 +/- 0.99 dB2; P < .001). Long-term fluctuation increased as a function of eccentricity for both blue-on-yellow and white-on-white perimetry. Short-term fluctuation was significantly greater for blue-on-yellow (0.46 +/- 0.25 dB) than that for white-on-white perimetry (0.29 +/- 0.19 dB; P < .02). Finally, the intersubject variability was significantly greater in blue-on-yellow (13.2 +/- 2.8 dB2) than it was in white-on-white perimetry (4.25 +/- 1.13 dB2; P < .001). Similar results were found with the Octopus perimeter. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term fluctuation and short-term fluctuation of blue-on-yellow perimetry are greater than those of white-on-white perimetry in normal subjects. The increased long-term fluctuation requires appropriate statistical approaches when evaluating serial change of blue-on-yellow perimetry.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects.

PURPOSE: To compare the test-retest variability characteristics of frequency-doubling perimetry, a new perimetric test, with those of conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal control subjects. METHODS: The study sample contained 64 patients and 47 normal subjects aged 66.16+/-11.86 and 64.26+/-7.99 years (mean +/- SD), respectively. All subjects underwent frequency-doubling perimetry (using the threshold mode) and conventional perimetry (using program 30-2 of the Humphrey Field Analyzer; Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, CA) in one randomly selected eye. Each test was repeated at 1-week intervals for five tests with each technique over 4 weeks. Empirical 5th and 95th percentiles of the distribution of threshold deviations at retest were determined for all combinations of single tests and mean of two tests, stratified by threshold deviation. The influence of visual field eccentricity and overall visual field loss on variability also were examined. RESULTS: Mean test time with frequency-doubling perimetry in patients and normal control subjects was 5.90 and 5.25 minutes, respectively, and with conventional perimetry was 17.20 and 14.01 minutes, respectively. In patients, there was a significant correlation between the results of the two techniques, in the full field and in quadrants, whereas in normal subjects there was no such correlation. In patients, the retest variability of conventional perimetry in locations with 20-dB loss was 120% (single tests) and 127% (mean tests) higher compared with that in locations with 0-dB loss. Comparative figures for frequency-doubling perimetry were 40% and 47%, respectively. Variability also increased more with threshold deviation in normal subjects tested with conventional perimetry. In both patients and normal subjects, variability increased with visual field eccentricity in conventional perimetry, but not in frequency-doubling perimetry. Both techniques showed an increase in variability with overall visual field damage. CONCLUSIONS: Frequency-doubling perimetry has different test-retest variability characteristics than conventional perimetry and may have potential for monitoring glaucomatous field damage.

Aged↗

PubMed1995

Comparison of high-pass resolution perimetry and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.

PURPOSE: We sought to ascertain whether high-pass resolution perimetry would provide results comparable to those of standard perimetry. METHODS: Thirty-four eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma, 37 eyes suspected of having glaucoma, and 36 normal control eyes were matched for age and lens density. We controlled for refraction, pupil size, and learning effects. Standard and ring visual fields were obtained with the Humphrey perimeter and the Frisén ring perimeter, respectively. Each test was judged according to the Glaucoma Hemifield Test (a statistical visual field analysis method) to be outside normal limits (abnormal) or not outside normal limits (normal or borderline). RESULTS: Under these conditions, both tests identified 19 of 34 (56%) glaucoma eyes as outside normal limits. High-pass resolution perimetry determined that 34 of 36 (94%) normal eyes were not outside normal limits; standard perimetry determined that all 36 normal eyes were not outside normal limits. High-pass resolution perimetry determined 12 of 37 (32%) eyes that were glaucoma suspects were outside normal limits; standard perimetry determined three of the 37 (8%) glaucoma suspect eyes were outside normal limits. Overall agreement between the two tests was 65%. CONCLUSION: With the Glaucoma Hemifield Test, high-pass resolution perimetry was comparable to standard perimetry in sensitivity and specificity, and identified a slightly higher percentage of patients at risk for glaucoma as abnormal. These results suggest that high-pass resolution perimetry should continue to be explored as an alternative to standard perimetry for the diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma.

Female↗

PubMed1995

Automated perimetry detects visual field loss before manual Goldmann perimetry.

PURPOSE: To determine if automated perimetry detects visual field defects before manual Goldmann perimetry. METHODS: Subjects with ocular hypertension without field loss on detailed manual perimetry were followed prospectively with annual automated and manual perimetry. Subjects with field loss on manual perimetry were age-matched post hoc to subjects who did not have field loss. The automated fields 1 year before the development of field loss on manual perimetry were compared between the two groups. Subjects were recruited from ophthalmologists' offices, eye clinics, and a population-based glaucoma survey in the Baltimore area. Abnormal results detected on the Humphrey Field Analyzer were defined using the glaucoma hemifield test, mean defect, and corrected-pattern standard deviation. RESULTS: Forty subjects who had field loss during 8 years of follow-up were compared with 145 control subjects with ocular hypertension who did not have defects. Seventy-five percent of converters had abnormal results of the glaucoma hemifield test 1 year before field loss on manual perimetry, whereas 22% of controls had abnormal results of the glaucoma hemifield test (odds ratio, 13.4). The odds ratio of field loss developing on manual perimetry within 12 months was 3.3 for those with borderline results of the glaucoma hemifield test relative to the control subjects. The odds ratio was 6.0 for corrected-pattern standard deviation (P < 0.05) and 3.9 for mean deviation (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Those with field loss on manual perimetry were more likely to have had an abnormal automated field 1 year before conversion than those who did not convert. However, 22% of subjects in whom definitive field loss did not develop on manual perimetry during the study had abnormal automated fields at one visit and 15% had abnormal automated fields on two consecutive visits.

Aged↗

PubMed2000

Short-wavelength automated perimetry and standard perimetry in the detection of progressive optic disc cupping.

OBJECTIVE: To compare progression in short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) and white-on-white (standard) perimetry in eyes with progressive glaucomatous changes of the optic disc detected by serial stereophotographs. METHODS: Forty-seven glaucoma patients with at least 2 disc stereophotographs more than 2 years apart, along with standard perimetry and SWAP examinations within 6 months of each disc photo of the same eye, were included in the study. The mean follow-up time was 4.1 years (range, 2.0-8.9 years). Baseline and follow-up stereophotographs were then graded and compared for the presence of progression. Progression in standard perimetry and SWAP, using the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study scoring system and a clinical scoring system, was compared between eyes with progressive change on stereophotographs and those without. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 47 eyes showed progressive change by stereophotographs. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean change in Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study scores for both standard perimetry (P<.004) and SWAP (P<.001) between the progressed and nonprogressed groups. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve were higher using SWAP than standard perimetry when evaluated by either algorithm. This was statistically significant only in the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study scoring system (P =.04). CONCLUSIONS: Short-wavelength automated perimetry identified more patients than standard perimetry as having progressive glaucomatous changes of the optic disc. Compared with standard perimetry, SWAP may improve the detection of progressive glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1231-1236

Aged↗

PubMed2000

[Blue-yellow perimetry in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Studies before and after therapy in comparison with white-white perimetry].

INTRODUCTION: Disturbance of the blue light perceptance in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment was demonstrated by Köllner 1907 with the help of colour-perimetries. We examined the blue- and white-function after retinal reattachment by blue-on-yellow-perimetry compared with white-on-white-perimetry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 10 Patients with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment and a visual acuity > or = 0.1 were examined preoperatively, 4 days and 6 weeks after successful buckling procedure. We performed a white-on-white-perimetry as also perimetries with blue stimuli on a yellow luminance background (program 30-2 of the Humphrey Field Analyzer 750). RESULTS: Four days after surgery the increase in sensitivity was significantly less for the blue-function compared with the white-function. Preoperatively and 6 weeks postoperatively the sensitivities were not significantly different. Between these time-points function recovered in average for both methods from MD -15 dB to MD -5 dB. CONCLUSION: After successful retinal detachment surgery the blue- and white-function increased. Blue-on-yellow-perimetry showed more retinal sensitivity loss than white-on-white-perimetry immediately after surgery. Blue-on-yellow-perimetry measured the same retinal sensitivity loss as white-on-white-perimetry preoperatively and 6 weeks postoperatively.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Influence of clinical factors on blue-on-yellow perimetry for diabetic patients without retinopathy: comparison with white-on-white perimetry.

PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of clinical factors (duration of diabetes mellitus, fasting blood sugar level, fructosamine concentration, and hemoglobin A1c) on blue-on-yellow (B-on-Y) perimetry compared with white-on-white (W-on-W) perimetry for diabetics without retinopathy. METHODS: Both B-on-Y perimetry and W-on-W perimetry were performed for 33 diabetics without retinopathy. Thirty-three subjects with healthy eyes served as age-matched controls. RESULTS: For both diabetic patients and controls, mean deviation (MD) and corrected pattern SD of perimetry showed no difference irrespective of B-on-Y or W-on-W perimetry. For diabetics, MD of B-on-Y perimetry decreased in proportion to the morbid period with diabetes mellitus, with the same being true with deterioration of the clinical factors. Multiple regression analysis disclosed no differences in MD of clinical factors for W-on-W perimetry, despite the duration of diabetes mellitus exerting a significant influence on MD of B-on-Y perimetry. CONCLUSION: Even at the premorbid stage of diabetic retinopathy, longer duration of diabetes mellitus and longer persistence of poorly controlled diabetes mellitus are associated with an insidious progress of dysfunction in the retinal blue cone system.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare intra- and intertest variability components for both standard automated perimetry (SAP) and frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in a small group of normal individuals and patients with glaucoma. METHODS: The method of constant stimuli (MOCS) was used to examine matched test locations with both SAP and FDT perimetry stimuli in a group of eight normal individuals and seven patients with glaucoma. Subjects were tested weekly at three predetermined visual field loci for 5 consecutive weeks. Frequency-of-seeing (FOS) curves were generated and used to quantify threshold sensitivity (50% seen on FOS, in decibels), intratest variability (FOS interquartile range, in decibels), and intertest variability (interquartile range of weekly repeated threshold determinations, in decibels). RESULTS: In patients with glaucoma, SAP intra- and intertest variabilities were found to increase with sensitivity reductions, as previously reported. FDT perimetry revealed that both intra- and intertest variability components did not appreciably change with reductions in sensitivity. With the measurement scales used in this investigation, both intra- and intertest variability components were significantly greater for SAP than for FDT perimetry (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). Intratest variability exceeded intertest variability for both SAP (P = 0.001) and FDT perimetry (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For both SAP and FDT perimetry, variability occurring within a single test session contributed more to total variability than between-session variability. When the measurement scales available on commercial instrumentation were used, FDT perimetry exhibited significantly less variability than SAP, especially within regions of visual field sensitivity loss. FDT perimetry therefore shows promise as an effective test for detecting progressive glaucomatous visual field loss, although prospective longitudinal validation is still required to determine sensitivity to change.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Comparison of visual evoked potentials, automated perimetry and frequency-doubling perimetry in early detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.

The present study compares frequency-doubling perimetry (FDP), automated perimetry (AP) and visual evoked potentials (VEP) for their ability to diagnose early glaucoma. In present study 224 patients of Clinic for Eye Diseases, Clinical Hospital "Sestre Milosrdnice" that had diagnosis of open angle glaucoma and glaucomatous visual field loss proven by automated static perimetry on only one eye were performing all three tests. Visual evoked potentials, automated perimetry and frequency-doubling perimetry were performed four times in each patient with six months period in between testing. Significant difference was proven between frequency-doubling perimetry and automated perimetry in favor for FDP in early detection of glaucomatous field loss. There was no significant difference between FDP and VEP neither between VEP and AP measurements. The results of this study indicate that frequency-doubling perimetry is significantly better method for early detection of glaucomatous visual field loss than automated static perimetry.

Automation↗

PubMed2002

Can Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast perimetry be used as an alternative to goldmann perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic practice?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential role of Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Fast computerized static perimetry, compared with that of Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry (GVF), for reliably detecting visual field defects in neuro-ophthalmic practice. BACKGROUND: Automated visual field testing is challenging in patients with poor visual acuity or severe neurological disease. In these patients, GVF is often the preferred visual field technique, but performance of this test requires a skilled technician, and this option may not be readily available. The recent development of the SITA family of perimetry has allowed for shorter automated perimetry testing time in normal subjects and in glaucoma patients. However, its usefulness for detecting visual field defects in patients with poor vision or neurological disease has not been evaluated. DESIGN AND METHODS: We prospectively studied 64 consecutive, neuro-ophthalmologically impaired patients with neurologic disability of 3 or more on the Modified Rankin Scale, or with visual acuity of 20/200 or worse in at least one eye. Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry and SITA Fast results were compared for each eye, with special attention to reliability, test duration, and detection and quantification of neuro-ophthalmic visual field defects. We categorized the results into 1 of 9 groups based on similarities and reliabilities. Patient test preference was also assessed. RESULTS: Patients were separated into 2 groups, those with severe neurologic deficits (n = 50 eyes) and those with severe vision loss but mild neurologic dysfunction or none at all (n = 50 eyes). Overall, GVF and SITA Fast were equally reliable in 77% of eyes. Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry and SITA Fast showed similar visual field results in 75% of all eyes (70% of eyes of patients with severe neurologic deficits and 80% of eyes with poor vision). The mean +/- SD duration per eye was 7.97 +/- 3.2 minutes for GVF and 5.43 +/- 1.41 minutes for SITA Fast (P<.001). Ninety-one percent of patients preferred GVF to SITA Fast. CONCLUSIONS: We found the SITA Fast strategy of automated perimetry to be useful in the detection, and accurate in the quantification of central visual field defects associated with neuro-ophthalmic disorders. Our results suggest that for the general ophthalmologist or neurologist, visual field testing with SITA Fast perimetry might even be preferable to GVF, especially if performed by a marginally trained technician, even in patients with severely decreased vision or who are neurologically disabled.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

Prediction of visual field defects on standard automated perimetry by screening C-20-1 frequency doubling technology perimetry.

PURPOSE: To determine if perimetric defects, initially seen with C-20-1 frequency doubling technology (FDT) in eyes with normal standard automated perimetry (SAP), will subsequently develop on standard automated perimetry. METHODS: Review of patients considered high-risk glaucoma suspects (GS) or with ocular hypertension (OHT), who underwent one C-20-1 FDT in 1997 or 1998. An abnormal frequency doubling technology was defined in two ways, as having either at least one, or at least two abnormal locations. An abnormal standard automated perimetry was defined as fulfilling two of three modified Anderson criteria for abnormality on two consecutive tests and at final standard automated perimetry. RESULTS: Of 63 eyes (50 patients), 18 (28.6%) had >or=1 FDT defects, and 12 (19.0%) had >or=2 defects. After follow-up of 62 +/- 26 months, an abnormal standard automated perimetry developed in 5 eyes (28%) with frequency doubling technology defects at 22 +/- 13 months (28% of eyes with >or=1 defect and 42% of eyes with >or=2 FDT defects), and in 4 of 45 eyes (9%) with normal frequency doubling technology at 32 +/- 30 months. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed the risk of an abnormal standard automated perimetry at 5 years with or=1 defects, and >or=2 defects, was 10.3%, 11.8%, 30.6%, and 46.4% respectively (P = 0.060 for >or=1 defects compared with no defects; P = 0.002 for >or=2 defects compared with <or=1 defect). CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal results on C-20-1 frequency doubling technology perimetry predicted glaucomatous visual field loss on standard automated perimetry in some patients in this patient population, though a relatively high false positive rate was noted. Abnormality on C-20-1 frequency doubling technology warrants close observation, and further prospective evaluation is warranted.

Aged↗

PubMed2001

Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry.

AIM: To determine the number of missed points on frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry that optimise the sensitivity and specificity of the test and to determine the topographical accuracy of the test in a clinical setting. METHODS: In a prospective study, the perimetric data from 99 patients who underwent both FDT perimetry in the screening mode and Humphrey 24-2 (H24-2) were used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the FDT perimetry compared with the full threshold H24-2 as the gold standard. RESULTS: Missed points on the FDT perimetry correlated with both the mean deviation and the corrected pattern standard deviation on the Humphrey perimetry. A score assigned to abnormal points on the FDT perimetry and the Humphrey total deviation plot showed a significant correlation for both the location and the depth of the defect. In comparing the Humphrey hemifield test with the FDT perimetry results, if at least one missed point on the frequency doubling test was considered as abnormal then the overall sensitivity of the test was 78.1% and the specificity was 89.1%. CONCLUSION: FDT perimetry in the screening mode performed in a clinical setting was highly specific, exhibited reasonable sensitivity, and accurately determined the location and depth of scotomas when compared with the full threshold Humphrey 24-2.

Aged↗

PubMed1997

Short-wavelength automated perimetry and motion automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), a test favoring the detection of the target by the parvocellular pathways of vision, with motion automated perimetry (MAP), a test favoring detection by the magnocellular pathways, in the same eyes. PARTICIPANT: Thirty-three individuals in whom glaucoma was suspected (glaucoma suspects) and 17 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma were compared with 30 age-matched normal control subjects. INTERVENTIONS: Short-wavelength automated perimetry was done with the usual protocol (program 24-2). Motion coherence thresholds were measured with 14 random do targets that covered the 24-2 field area. Short-wavelength automated perimetry test locations corresponding to each of the 14 motion automated perimetry locations were averaged to compare 14 locations for each text. RESULTS: Short-wavelength automated perimetry and motion automated perimetry were correlated by visual field location (whole field r = -0.40, P < .001), especially in the superior field (r = -0.45, P < .001). Overlap for defective locations was present in 16 (94%) of the 17 eyes with glaucoma, although in the glaucoma suspect eyes each test showed the earliest deficit in a percentage of individuals with overlap in only 3 (21%) of the 14 eyes. An analysis of variance showed a significant effect of diagnosis for both tests (SWAP and MAP, P < .001); the eyes of patients with glaucoma were significantly different from those of the normal controls. The results for glaucoma suspects were significantly different on SWAP only in the superior temporal field (Tukey-Kramer test). CONCLUSIONS: Both tests successfully identified eyes with glaucoma and a percentage of the glaucoma suspect eyes; both were correlated by field location. These results suggest that damage due to glaucoma is nonselective for either the parvocellular or the magnocellular ganglion cell axons, that there may be individual differences in which type of ganglion cell shows damage first, and that when standard visual field loss is present the results of SWAP and MAP are defective.

Glaucoma, Open-Angle↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Conventional perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology, and visual evoked potentials in the assessment of patients with multiple sclerosis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic power of conventional, achromatic, automated perimetry (CAP), short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry, and visual evoked potentials (VEP) in a group of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) with or without a history of optic neuritis. METHODS: Thirty eyes of 15 patients (5 male, 10 female, average age 38+/-7 years) with confirmed diagnosis of MS underwent CAP, SWAP (Humphrey 750-II VFA, program central 30-2, full-threshold strategy), FDT perimetry (program N-30), and pattern VEPs. Sixteen eyes (53.3%) had no history of ocular involvement and a negative ophthalmologic examination. They were matched with a control group of 10 healthy volunteers (4 male, 6 female, average age 31+/-10 years). The mean deviation (MD) and the pattern standard deviation (PSD) of the two groups were compared (t-test). Fourteen eyes (46.7%) had, on the contrary, a history of optic neuritis. Inside this group, the MD and the PSD of the three techniques were correlated (Spearman's rank test), in order to investigate whether any significant differences might be revealed by these techniques in pointing out the total amount of visual field damage. RESULTS: When comparing MS patients without signs or symptoms of ocular involvement and a control group, no significant differences were found for CAP MD, CAP PSD, and FDT PSD. Significant differences were found, on the contrary, for SWAP MD (p=0.0014), SWAP PSD (p=0.0001), and FDT MD (p=0.0001). When considering the MD and the PSD of the three techniques in the group of MS patients who had a history of optic neuritis, a significant correlation was found only between CAP MD and SWAP MD (r=0.0057), with a tendency by SWAP to reveal a higher rate of visual field loss. The other correlations were not significant. According to predefined criteria, the group of asymptomatic subjects had abnormal CAP in 1 eye (6.25%), abnormal SWAP in 9 (56.2%), abnormal FDT in 11 (68.7%), and abnormal VEPs in 7 (43.7%). The combined use of all techniques allowed us to identify silent optic nerve impairment in 15 (93.7%) eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Short-wavelength automated perimetry and FDT perimetry are two non-conventional perimetric techniques that were mainly developed for the early detection of glaucomatous damage. The results of this study demonstrate their efficacy also in detecting early visual field deficits in MS patients without clinical signs of optic neuropathy. Frequency doubling perimetry, in particular, proved to be an easy, fast, and sensitive technique in the assessment of patients with MS. Our results also suggest that subclinical visual involvement in MS can be better diagnosed using multiple (neurophysiologic and psychophysical) tests.

Adult↗

PubMed1995

Using motion perimetry to detect visual field defects in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a comparison with conventional automated perimetry.

Motion perimetry, a method of visual field testing that uses computer graphics to measure motion perception, quantitates a subject's ability to detect a coherent shift in position of dots in a defined circular area against a background of fixed dots. Motion size threshold is defined as the smallest detectable circular target in which dot motion is detected. Subjects respond by touching a computer monitor screen with a light pen, first when they see a target (reaction time) and a second time where motion targets are detected (localization). Reaction time (msec) to the stimulus and localization error (number of pixels from target center) are then calculated and stored. We tested on eye in each of 20 idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) patients and 40 age-matched normal subjects by conventional automated perimetry (Humphrey visual field analyzer, program 24-2) and motion perimetry. Pointwise probability plots of individual abnormal test points for size threshold responses were generated for the IIH patients based on the 95% confidence limits of the normal subject responses. An analysis of the subjects' visual field pairs (motion versus conventional automated perimetry) was performed based on these probability plots. The IIH patients had an elevated mean motion threshold (p < 0.001) and reaction time (p < 0.001) compared with the normal subjects. There were no significant differences for the localization errors. Based on the probability plot analysis, there was good correlation of the visual field defects between the two perimetry tests. In addition, motion perimetry identified nerve fiber bundle-shaped defects in nine patients in whom they were not detected with conventional automated perimetry.

Adult↗