May 2003
Volume 44, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2003
Glaucoma Progression as Assessed by HRT and Different Visual Field Methods to Detect Progression: How do They Correlate?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • F.M. Grignolo
    Istituto di Clinica Oculistica, Univ di Torino, Torino, Italy
  • A.M. Fea
    Istituto di Clinica Oculistica, Univ di Torino, Torino, Italy
  • R. Rigault de la Longrais
    Istituto di Clinica Oculistica, Univ di Torino, Torino, Italy
  • E. Borasio
    Istituto di Clinica Oculistica, Univ di Torino, Torino, Italy
  • G. Vizzeri
    Istituto di Clinica Oculistica, Univ di Torino, Torino, Italy
  • T. Rolle
    Istituto di Clinica Oculistica, Univ di Torino, Torino, Italy
  • B. Brogliatti
    Istituto di Clinica Oculistica, Univ di Torino, Torino, Italy
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  F.M. Grignolo, None; A.M. Fea, None; R. Rigault de la Longrais, None; E. Borasio, None; G. Vizzeri, None; T. Rolle, None; B. Brogliatti, None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2003, Vol.44, 4357. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      F.M. Grignolo, A.M. Fea, R. Rigault de la Longrais, E. Borasio, G. Vizzeri, T. Rolle, B. Brogliatti; Glaucoma Progression as Assessed by HRT and Different Visual Field Methods to Detect Progression: How do They Correlate? . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003;44(13):4357.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: Automated perimetry is the main stay of monitoring glaucomatous damage. Several classifications of visual field progression have been used in retrospective and prospective studies. The problem of how to select the optimal method of visual field analysis is exacerbated by the lack of a standard criterion for what constitutes a visual field progression. Detection of visual field progression is important not only for the clinical practice but also for randomized trials of glaucoma treatment. We investigated different analytical methods of estimating the visual field progression and we correlated them to the HRT analysis of the optic nerve head. Methods: A longitudinal study of 39 OH, 20 early, 19 advanced POAG, 30 NTG and 30 control eyes was undertaken. Visual fields (Octopus G1) and HRT were done at the beginning of the follow-up and one year later. Several analytical methods of visual field progression have been used (AGIS, CIGTS, EMGT, Brusini, EGS). Analysis: Non parametric tests were used to compare the percentage of progressed vs stable visual field using the different methods (Kruskal-Wallis). Results and conclusions: The apparent rate of progression was higher using the CICTS method. AGIS and EMGT gave similar results. The Brusini's classification proved the more conservative.

Keywords: visual fields 
×
×

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.

×