COMPARISON OF FAST STRATEGIES WITH NORMAL THRESHOLD STRATEGY USING OCTOPUS PROGRAMME M2 IN CENTRAL FIELD DEFECTS
Abstract
Background. Fast test strategies are relatively new methods for assessing differential light sensitivity threshold in computer assisted perimetry. The purpose of our study was to compare and evaluate the accuracy of normal threshold strategy, dynamic strategy and TOP (Tendency Oriented Perimetry) strategy by testing central visual field with programme Octopus M2, which has the greatest concentration of test points (81 test points in the central 10 degrees area). A similar comparative study with programme Octopus M2 has not been done yet.
Methods. 30 normal eyes and 30 eyes with central field defects of different degrees and etiology were tested. The testing was performed with Octopus 101 perimeter in standard conditions. The programme M2 was used. Each eye was tested three times – once with normal, once with dynamic and once with TOP strategy. Each subject had at least 20 minutes of break between each testing. The sequence of the strategies was equally alternated for all three strategies.
Differences between strategies were statistically evaluated regarding examination time, parameters MS (Mean Sensitivity), MD (Mean Defect) and LV (Loss Variance), the extent and depth of a field defect, sensitivity and specificity.
Results. Fast strategies significantly reduce examination time. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the observed parameters in the group of eyes with field defects. There were statistically significant differences in MS and MD in the group of normal eyes (p < 0.01), but these differences were not clinically important. All three strategies are well comparable regarding sensitivity and specificity.
Conclusions. Fast test strategies (especially TOP strategy) represent a good alternative to normal threshold strategy. Better efficiency of fast strategies justifies their greater clinical application.
Downloads
References
Hudson C, Wild JM, O’Neill EC. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994; 35: 268–80.
Flammer J, Drance SM, Fankhauser F, Augustiny L. Differential light threshold in automated static perimetry – factors influencing short-term fluctuation. Arch Ophthalmol 1984; 102: 876–9.
Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M. Differential light threshold. Short- and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1984; 102: 704–6.
Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol 1989; 108: 130–5.
Wall M, Johnson CA, Kutzko KE, Nguyen R, Brito C, Keltner JL. Long- and short-term variability of automated perimetry results in patients with optic neuritis and healthy subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 1998; 116: 53–61.
Heijl A, Asman P. Pitfalls of automated perimetry in glaucoma diagnosis. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 1995; 6: II: 46–51.
Webster AR, Luff AJ, Canning CR, Elkington AR. The effect of pilocarpine on the glaucomatous visual field. Br J Ophthalmol 1993; 77: 721–5.
Moss ID, Wild JM, Whitaker DJ. The influence of age-related cataract on blueon-yellow perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995; 36: 764–73.
Lee M, Zulauf M, Caprioli J. The influence of patient reliability on visual field outcome. Am J Ophthalmol 1994; 117: 756–61.
Anonimus. Octopus visual field digest. Schliern: Interzeag AG; 1998.
Heijl A, Drance SM. Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 1983; 67: 512–6.
Johnson CA, Nelson-Quigg JM. A prospective three-year study of response properties of normal subjects and patients during automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 1993; 100: 269–74.
American Academy of Ophthalmology. Automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1144–51.
Fujimoto N, Adachi-Usami E. Effect of number of test points in automated perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 1992; 113: 317–20.
Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Reyes JAA, Sierra MAG. Rapid assessment of the visual field in glaucoma using an analysis based on multiple correlations. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1990; 228: 387–91.
Westcott MC, McNaught AI, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. High spatial resolution automated perimetry in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1997; 81: 452–9.
Flammer J. The concept of visual field indices. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1986; 224: 389–92.
Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J, Asman P. Visual field interpretation with empiric probability maps. Arch Ophthalmol 1989; 107: 204–8.
Heijl A, Asman P. A clinical study of perimetric probability maps. Arch Ophthalmol 1989; 107: 199–203.
Katz J. A comparison of the pattern- and total deviation-based glaucoma change probability programs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 1012–6.
Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D, McNaught AI, Crabb DP. Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80: 40–8.
Viswanathan AC, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Early detection of visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of progressor and statpac 2. Br J Ophthalmol 1997; 81: 1037–42.
Johnson CA, Chauhan BC, Shapiro LR. Properties of staircase procedures for estimating thresholds in automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992; 33: 2966–74.
Reitner A, Titti M, Ergun E, Baradaran-Dilmaghani R. The efficient use of perimetry for neuro-ophthalmic diagnosis. Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80: 903–5.
Sponsel WE, Ritch R, Stamper R, Higginbotham EJ, Anderson DR, Wilson MR, Zimmerman TJ. Prevent blindness America visual field screening study. Am J Ophthalmol 1995; 120: 699–708.
Glass E, Schaumberger M, Lachenmayr BJ. Simulations for fastpac and the standard 4-2 dB full-threshold strategy of the Humphrey field analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995; 36: 1847–54.
Schaumberger M, Schafer B, Lachenmayr BJ. Glaucomatous visual fields. Fastpac versus full threshold strategy of the Humphrey field analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995; 36: 1390–7.
Messmer C, Flammer J. Octopus program G1X. Ophthalmologica 1991; 203: 184–8.
Lachkar Y, Barrault O, Lefrancois A, Demailly PH. Strategie rapide TOP en perimetrie automatisee Octopus. J Fr Ophthalmol 1998; 21: 180–4.
Morales J, Weitzman ML, Gonzalez de la Rosa M. Comparison between tendency-oriented perimetry (TOP) and Octopus threshold perimetry. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 134–42.
Zulauf M, Fehlmann P, Flammer J. Perimetrie mit der normalen OctopusStrategie und der »dynamischen« Strategie nach Weber. Ophthalmologe 1996; 93: 420–7.
Gonzalez de la Rosa M, Morales J, Weijland A. A comparison of the tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) method with normal threshold perimetry using a PC controlled Octopus 1-2-3 perimeter. Interzeag Report 1998.
Weber J, Klimaschka T. Test time and efficiency of the dynamic strategy in glaucoma perimetry. German J Ophthalmol 1995; 4: 25–31.
Morales J. New perimetry algorithm tests sensitivity points relative to each other; results in 3 minutes. Ocular Surgery News 1997; 8: 1–1.
Van Bemmel JH, Musen MA. Handbook of medical informatics. Houten/ Diegem: Springer Verlag & Bohn-Staflen-Van Loghum, 1997.
Mould RF. Introductory medical statistics. 3rd ed. Bristol: IOP Publishing Ltd.; 1998.
Adamič Š. Temelji biostatistike. 2nd ed. Ljubljana: Medicinska fakulteta Univerze Edvarda Kardelja v Ljubljani; 1989.
Guilford JP. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill Co.; 1968.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; i: 307–10.
Matthews DE, Farewell VT. Using and understanding medical statistics. 3rd ed. Basel: Karger AG; 1996.
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.
