Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “PERIMETRY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the 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

[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↗
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↗
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↗
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↗
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↗
PubMed1993

Longitudinal comparison of temporal-modulation perimetry with white-on-white and blue-on-yellow perimetry in ocular hypertension and early glaucoma.

We obtained data over 3 years on temporal-modulation perimetry (TMP), standard automated [white-on-white (W/W)] perimetry, and short-wavelength-sensitive [blue-on-yellow (B/Y)] perimetry in ocular hypertensive (OH) patients and patients with early glaucomatous visual-field loss (EG). Evidence of visual-field defects was obtained with the use of both B/Y perimetry and TMP in the majority of OH and EG eyes that demonstrated progression on W/W perimetry as well as in all stable EG eyes. Using the nerve-fiber-bundle pattern to compare testing procedures, we determined that these defects were generally as extensive or more extensive than the concurrent W/W abnormalities. In terms of location over the 3 years of testing, TMP and B/Y defects were reasonably consistent in the EG eyes, somewhat less consistent in the OH eyes demonstrating progression, and both inconsistent and infrequent in the stable OH eyes. The greatest degree of overlap occurred between the location of defects obtained by use of the higher TMP frequencies (8 and 16 Hz) and that of defects obtained by use of B/Y perimetry. Since these two methods are thought to isolate different visual mechanisms subserved by different visual pathways, these results suggest that early glaucomatous visual-field damage as revealed by TMP and B/Y perimetry may not be specific to a single visual pathway.

Color Perception Tests↗
PubMed1999

Comparison of threshold visual perimetry and objective pupil perimetry in clinical patients.

OBJECTIVES: In an attempt to measure the visual field objectively, we have performed pupil perimetry, by which the pupil light reflex is monitored in response to perimetric light stimuli. The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether pupil perimetry reveals defects similar to those revealed by standard threshold perimetry in patients with various diseases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An infrared pupillometer was linked to an automated perimeter to record, at each perimetric location, 76 pupil contractions, which were comparable to the test locations of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA 30-2 program; Humphrey, San Leandro, CA). One hundred eighteen patients with various diseases were investigated. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients (77.1%) maintained a pupil area large enough (more than 10 mm2 in area) to respond adequately to focal light stimuli throughout the test. The correlation between the pupil field and the threshold visual field was subjectively judged to be good in most cases. However, pupil perimetry showed less damage than that seen in threshold perimetry in six of nine patients who had Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). CONCLUSIONS: Pupil perimetry is a good method for measuring the visual field objectively and has potential for clinical use in most of the cases.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Short wavelength automated perimetry, frequency doubling technology perimetry, and pattern electroretinography for prediction of progressive glaucomatous standard visual field defects.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical use of a test battery of short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), frequency doubling technology perimetry (FDT), and pattern electroretinography (PERG) in predicting progressive glaucomatous visual field defects on standard automated perimetry (SAP). STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, longitudinal, observational case series. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and fifty-two patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) with bilateral glaucomatous visual field defects on SAP were followed at 6-month intervals over a period of 30 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Short wavelength automated perimetry, FDT, and PERG results were compared between POAG eyes with and without progressive field loss on SAP. These two groups were used to evaluate whether PERG, SWAP, and/or FDT is predictive of future progression of field loss on SAP. RESULTS: Using the criteria of progressive field loss on SAP defined by the Collaborative Normal Tension Glaucoma Study, 54 eyes (study group) of 54 POAG patients showed progressive defects, whereas 84 eyes (control group) of 84 POAG patients showed no progression. Only 11.1% (6 of 54) of the eyes with a progression of field loss on SAP showed no increase of deficits on the three functional tests before progression. Short wavelength automated perimetry detected early progressive defects on SAP in 43 of the 54 eyes (79.6%). Of these 54 POAG eyes, FDT showed progressive deficits in 40 eyes (74.1%), whereas PERG amplitude P1N2 showed progressive deficits in 35 eyes (64.8%) before progression of field loss on SAP. A test battery consisting of SWAP and PERG P1N2-amplitude was able to detect 88.9% of eyes before a prediction of field loss on SAP. When comparing the results of the two functional tests, SWAP and FDT in the 84 eyes without progression of field loss on SAP between baseline and at 30 months, SWAP and FDT showed progressive deficits in 34.5% and 35.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All three tests (SWAP, FDT, and PERG) have been successful in detecting glaucoma eyes with a future progression of standard visual field defects. A test battery of SWAP and PERG P1N2-amplitude improved the power to predict these progressive defects on SAP. It remains to be seen whether the long-term follow-up in POAG eyes will improve the false-positive rate of SWAP and FDT.

Disease Progression↗
PubMed2001

Comparison of pupil perimetry and visual perimetry in normal eyes: decibel sensitivity and variability.

PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity and variability of pupil perimetry with visual perimetry at the same retinal locations in normal subjects. METHODS: Pupil perimetry was performed on the right and left eyes of 10 normal subjects using a computerized infrared pupillometer equipped to present perimetric light stimuli and record pupil light reflexes. Eleven locations were tested at different intensities along the horizontal meridian of each eye, and the decibel sensitivity of the pupil light reflex was compared with the visual threshold at the same location. RESULTS: The shape and height of the hill of vision (retinal sensitivity) was very similar between the right and left eyes of each individual using either pupil perimetry (R2 = 0.69) or standard threshold perimetry (R2 = 0.62) but was less similar between subjects. Comparisons between pupil and visual sensitivity revealed a lack of correlation at the same retinal location in normal eyes (R2 = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: The high intereye correlation for either pupil or visual sensitivity may provide an important tool for detecting focal or asymmetric visual field damage. Although the basic shape of the sensitivity profile of pupil and visual responses was similar under the conditions of testing, the two did not correlate well within each eye among the normal subjects. This highlights that similarities do exist in the sensitivity profile of the two pathways, but they do not seem to vary in the same proportion between normal individuals.

Adult↗