May 2007
Volume 48, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2007
Microperimetry vs. Humphery Visual Field in the Evaluation of Toxic Maculopathy
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • S. K. Gupta
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Florida-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida
  • S. Grover
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Florida-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida
  • W. W. Phillips
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Florida-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida
  • J. A. Sifrit
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Florida-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida
  • K. V. Chalam
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Florida-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships S.K. Gupta, None; S. Grover, None; W.W. Phillips, None; J.A. Sifrit, None; K.V. Chalam, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support Foundation Fighting Blindness Grant # T-CD-0905-0325
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2007, Vol.48, 4138. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      S. K. Gupta, S. Grover, W. W. Phillips, J. A. Sifrit, K. V. Chalam; Microperimetry vs. Humphery Visual Field in the Evaluation of Toxic Maculopathy. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):4138.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose:: To compare Microperimetry (MP-1) and Humphrey Perimetry in the evaluation of toxic macular retinopathies.

Methods:: Microperimetry and static perimetry were performed using HVF (10-2 Red Free) in 8 eyes of 4 patients being followed for possible toxic maculopathy. Each instrument had a 4-2-1 strategic application with a Goldman III stimulus and an identical schematic diagram. Fixation parameters accepted for the study were less than 20% fixation loss for the HVF, and greater than 90% fixation on the MP1.

Results:: Both instruments demonstrated similar defects, wherever applicable. However the MP1 displayed greater sensitivity in decibel loss and a more precise geographic representation of its schematic visual defects in 6 eyes tested as compared to the HVF. Fixation loss showed an increase in stability for 7 eyes for the MP1 analysis compared to the HVF.

Conclusions:: Both instruments showed detection of visual loss and fixation, but in our study the MP1 provided a greater stimulus sensitivity and scotoma localization when compared to the HVF in patients affected with toxic maculopathy. The MP1 provided adjustments for eye movements that allowed real-time alignment even if the patient was unable to fixate accurately. The HVF does not provide visual tracking and therefore can alter the analysis outcome. Also, the MP1 allows a color fundus photo to overlay the visual field, helping to correlate the pathology with the scotoma.

Keywords: visual fields • macula/fovea • drug toxicity/drug effects 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×