Purchase this article with an account.
K. Rohrschneider, C. Springer, S. Bültmann, H.E. Völcker; Microperimetry – comparison between the MP1 and SLO fundus perimetry . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):3025.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose: Fundus perimetry or microperimetry has been implemented into clinical use for exact correlation between fundus pathology and corresponding functional defects. Since the scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO, Rodenstock, Germany) is no longer available on the market and a new instrument named MP1 has been recently introduced by Nidek Inc., Italy, the aim of this study was to compare both instruments. Methods: We performed fundus perimetry with static threshold perimetry using the SLO and the MP1 in 29 eyes of 18 consecutive patients. The number of stimuli was comparable and a 4–2–1 staircase strategy with Goldmann III stimuli was applied. We compared the depth and size of scotomata as well as stability of fixation with both methods. Results: All eyes included could be examined with both methods. According to the perimetric software of the MP1, examination time for comparable numbers of stimuli was slightly higher as with our software at the SLO. There was good concordance of results, while the MP1 showed larger defects (depths and size) in 69% than the SLO did. In 21% the defect appeared equal while it was larger with the SLO in 10 %. Stability of fixation was comparable for both techniques with stable fixation in 16 versus 17 eyes (MP1 versus SLO). Conclusions:The MP1 with automated real–time image alignment is a major step forward in fundus perimetry. The enlarged field of view of the MP1 allows testing in an area of 36°x44° instead of the 21°x33°–area of the SLO. However, the current software needs improvement before exact measurements of defined retinal diseases are possible.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only