COMPARISON OF FAST PERIMETRIC STRATEGIES USING G2 PROGRAM ON OCTOPUS 101 PERIMETER
Abstract
Background. The duration of the perimetric examination was significantly shortened by development of fast perimetric strategies. By analyzing the results of normal, dynamic and TOP strategy we studied the differences in determination of MD, LV, in determination of number of all points with a deficit and number of points with a significant deficit of p < 0.5%.
Methods. 22 normal visual fields of 17 subjects (mean age 33 ± 15 years) and 22 visual fields with defects of 17 patients (47 ± 16 years) having different types and degrees of visual lesions were examined. All visual fields were examined once with each strategy in alternating order using Octopus 101 perimeter with the G2 program.
Results. No statistically significant differences were measured in MD values. In abnormal visual fields group, TOP strategy showed 11 ± 14 dB2 lower LV values compared to dynamic strategy (p < 0.01) and 9.8 ± 16 dB2 lower LV values compared to normal strategy (p = 0.02). In the abnormal visual fields group the dynamic strategy measured in average 3 points with the deficit less compared to the other two strategies (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between strategies in the number of points with a deficit of p < 0.5%.
Conclusions. With the exception of lower LV values measured with TOP strategy, the differences between TOP, dynamic strategy results are small and the time sparing benefits are substantial. Therefore the usage of fast perimetric strategies is clinically justified.
Downloads
References
Anon. Octopus visual field digest. Schliern: Interzeag AG; 1996.
Bebie H, Fankhauser F, Spahr J. Static perimetry: strategies. Acta Ophthalmol 1976; 54: 325– 38.
Gonzales de la Rosa M, Pareja A. Influence of the fatigue effect on the mean deviation measurement in perimetry. Eur J Ophthalmol 1997; 7: 29–34.
Weber J, Klimaschka T. Test time and efficiency of the dynamic strategy in glaucoma perimetry. Ger J Ophthalmol 1995; 4: 25–31.
Weber J, Rau S. The properties of perimetric thresholds in normal and glaucomatuos eyes. Ger J Ophthalmol 1992; 1: 79–85.
Vivell PM, Lachenmayr BJ, Zimmermann P. Comparative study of various perimetry strategies. Fortschr Ophthalmol 1991; 88: 819–23.
Maeda H, Nakaura M, Negi A. New perimetric threshold test algorithm with dynamic strategy and tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) in glaucomatous eyes. Eye 2000; 14: 747–51.
Martinez A, Pareja A, Mantolan C, Sanchez M, Cordoves L, Gonzales de la Rosa M. Results of the tendency oriented perimetry in normal population. Vision Res 1996; 36: Suppl Jermov: 153–3.
Lachkar Y, Barault O, Lefrancois A, Demailly P. Rapid tendency oriented perimeter (TOP) with the Octopus visual field analyser. J Fr Ophthalmol 1998; 21: 180–4.
Gonzales de la Rosa M, Bron A, Morales J, Sponsel WE. TOP perimetry: a theoretical evaluation. Vision Res 1996; 36: Suppl Jermov: 88–8.
Morales J, Weitzman ML, Gonzales de la Rosa M. Comparison between Tendency-Oriented Perimetry (TOP) and octopus threshold perimetry. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 134–42.
Kaiser HJ, Flammer J. Visual field atlas. Basel: Buser Printing company, 1992.
Walsh TJ ed. Visual fields: examination and interpretation. San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology, 1990.
Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1996; 114: 19–22.
Wood JM, Wild JM, Hussey MK, Crews SJ. Serial examination of the normal visual field using Octopus automated projection perimetry: evidence for a learning effect. Acta Ophthalmol 1987; 65: 326–33.
Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 1989; 107: 81–6.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assesing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; i: 307–10.
Flammer J. The concept of visual field indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1987; 224: 389–92.
The Author transfers to the Publisher (Zdravniški vestnik/Slovenian Medical Journal) all economic copyrights following form Article 22 of the Slovene Copyright and Related Rights Act (ZASP), including the right of reproduction, the right of distribution, the rental right, the right of public performance, the right of public transmission, the right of public communication by means of phonograms and videograms, the right of public presentation, the right of broadcasting, the right of rebroadcasting, the right of secondary broadcasting, the right of communication to the public, the right of transformation, the right of audiovisual adaptation and all other rights of the author according to ZASP.
The aforementioned rights are transferred non-exclusively, for an unlimited number of editions, for the term of the statutory
The Author can make use of his work himself or transfer subjective rights to others only after 3 months from date of first publishing in the journal Zdravniški vestnik/Slovenian Medical Journal.
The Publisher (Zdravniški vestnik/Slovenian Medical Journal) has the right to transfer the rights, acquired parties without explicit consent of the Author.
The Author consents that the Article be published under the Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0 (attribution-non-commercial) or comparable licence.
