September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Comparison of visual field artifact from two visual field analyzers
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Tamara L Berezina
    Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Rutgers - New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States
  • Albert S Khouri
    Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Rutgers - New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States
  • Catherin Horan
    University Hospital, Newark, New Jersey, United States
  • Robert D Fechtner
    Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Rutgers - New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Tamara Berezina, None; Albert Khouri, None; Catherin Horan, None; Robert Fechtner, Zeiss (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 3930. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Tamara L Berezina, Albert S Khouri, Catherin Horan, Robert D Fechtner; Comparison of visual field artifact from two visual field analyzers. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):3930.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Humphrey Field Analyzer 3 (HFA3) with AutoTCL lens was recently introduced to USA market. The design of the perimeter and the introduction of AutoTCL lens instead of individual trial lenses may influence positional or lens artifacts during testing. We tested the hypothesis that introduction of HFA3 in a clinic may alter the frequency of these artifacts during testing.

Methods : De-identified printouts of fields from the same eye from two different instruments (HFA3 and HFA2) were reviewed by two experienced readers. 288 tests (144 pairs of fields) from 144 eyes of 87 consecutive clinic patients who were tested on both devices (HFA3 and HFA2) were included in the analyses. Test results with VFI less than 50% were excluded. Fields were categorized as characteristic (positional) artifact present or absent. Artifact rates from the two instruments were compared. Chi-square test was used to compare proportions.

Results : The number of fields identified as having artifact generated by HFA3 during the first months of use was significantly higher compared to older fields from HFA2 (p=0.001119) (Figure).

Conclusions : Positional or rim artifacts were seen significantly more frequently with introduction of Humphrey Field Analyzer 3 (HFA3) in our clinic compared to Humphrey Field Analyzer 2 (HFA2). Operators must always be aware of patient positioning and clinicians should be alert to artifacts on visual field tests.

Figure. Printouts of visual field HFA 24-2 program for the same patient tested with HFA2 and HFA3

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

 

×
×

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.

×