June 2017
Volume 58, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2017
Comparison of Test Duration and Test Reliability Between Octopus 900 Perimetry and Humphrey SITA-Standard Perimetry
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Michael Beyer
    Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Kevin Lodewyk
    Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Nariman Nassiri
    Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Chaesik Kim
    Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Bret A Hughes
    Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Mark S Juzych
    Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Marshall Cyrlin
    Kresge Eye Institute, Detroit, Michigan, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Michael Beyer, None; Kevin Lodewyk, None; Nariman Nassiri, None; Chaesik Kim, None; Bret Hughes, None; Mark Juzych, None; Marshall Cyrlin, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2017, Vol.58, 2874. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Michael Beyer, Kevin Lodewyk, Nariman Nassiri, Chaesik Kim, Bret A Hughes, Mark S Juzych, Marshall Cyrlin; Comparison of Test Duration and Test Reliability Between Octopus 900 Perimetry and Humphrey SITA-Standard Perimetry. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):2874.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : The Octopus and Humphrey perimeters are two standard achromatic perimetry (SAP) instruments often utilized to diagnose and track visual field defects in glaucoma patients. In this prospective cross-sectional comparative study, we aimed to compare 24-2 Humphrey field Analyzer (HFA) II SITA-standard and Octopus 900 Tendency-oriented Perimetry tests in assessment of glaucomatous visual field defects. No previous study has compared these two devices.

Methods : Eligibility criteria included glaucoma or glaucoma suspect eyes of patients > 30 years old with best-corrected visual acuity 20/100 or better, spherical equivalent > −8 diopters and astigmatism <3 diopters. Patients initially performed 24-2 Humphrey field Analyzer (HFA) II SITA-standard and then Octopus 900 Tendency-oriented Perimetry tests with an interval of 6 to 12 months (median: 9 months). Different test parameters of HFA and Octopus 900 were collected (Table 2). Criteria for test reliability were based on the manufacturers’ recommendations defined as FP< 20%, FP and FN < 15% for HFA and FP, FN and RF < 15% for Octopus 900. Visual defect size and severity in superior, inferior, and whole fields were measured (method in Table 2).

Results : 78 eyes of 43 patients were included in this study. Patient demographics and baseline characteristics are in Table 1. The average age was 73.7 ± 13.6 (range: 32 to 97) years old. Octopus 900 showed statistically significantly shorter test duration (minutes) compared to HFA (3.09 ± 2.22 vs. 4.50 ± 1.61, p <0.001) (Table 2). Out of 78 tests, Octopus 900 demonstrated more reliable tests (53) than HFA (46); 33 and 12 tests were reliable and unreliable with both devices, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant (p=0.39; Chi-squared test). There was a statistically significant difference between Octopus 900 sLV and HFA PSD; (4.23 ± 2.44 vs. 4.90 ± 3.91, p=0.04). There was no statistically significant difference between two groups with regard to Octopus 900 MD vs. HFA MD, visual field defect size and defect severity in pattern and total deviation plots in each and the whole fields (p > 0.05 for all) (Table 2).

Conclusions : While defect size and defect severity are comparable between two devices, Octopus 900 showed shorter test duration and better test reliability.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.

 

 

×
×

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.

×