Purchase this article with an account.
Irfan Ansari, Balwantray C. Chauhan, Terry A. McCormick, Raymond P. LeBlanc; Comparison of Conventional and Pattern Discrimination Perimetry in a Prospective Study of Glaucoma Patients. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2000;41(13):4150-4157.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
purpose. To determine whether pattern discrimination perimetry detects
progression of glaucomatous visual fields earlier than conventional
static automated perimetry.
methods. One hundred nine eyes of 109 patients with open angle glaucoma were
enrolled in a longitudinal prospective study. Each patient underwent
visual field examinations with conventional and pattern discrimination
perimetry using the 30-2 program of the Humphrey Visual Field
Analyzer (Humphrey Instruments Inc., San Leandro, CA) and a
custom program for the pattern discrimination perimeter, respectively
at 6-month intervals. Progression of glaucomatous visual field
damage was assessed separately at each visit by predetermined criteria
for conventional and pattern discrimination perimetry. The time to
progression from baseline was calculated and the hemifield that showed
progression first was documented for both conventional and pattern
results. Patients were followed for a mean of 5.1 years and a mean of 11.6
visits. Sixty-eight (62.3%) patients did not show progression with
either technique. Of the remaining 41 patients, 15 (36.5%) showed
progression with conventional perimetry alone, 9 (21.9%) with pattern
discrimination perimetry alone, and 17 (41.4%) showed progression with
both techniques. Of these 17 patients, 11 (64.7%) were detected
earlier by conventional perimetry, and 6 (35.2%) were detected earlier
by pattern discrimination perimetry.
conclusions. This study suggests that pattern discrimination perimetry is less
effective than conventional perimetry in evaluating progressive
glaucomatous visual field damage.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only