June 2017
Volume 58, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2017
Detecting central visual field defect in early glaucoma patients: Humphrey vs Octopus comparison study.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Gloria Roberti
    IRCCS-Fondazione GB Bietti, Rome, Italy, Rome, Italy
  • Francesco Oddone
    IRCCS-Fondazione GB Bietti, Rome, Italy, Rome, Italy
  • Manuele Michelessi
    IRCCS-Fondazione GB Bietti, Rome, Italy, Rome, Italy
  • Lucia Tanga
    IRCCS-Fondazione GB Bietti, Rome, Italy, Rome, Italy
  • Sara Giammaria
    DSCMT, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
  • Davide Rastelli
    DSCMT, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
  • Gianluca Manni
    DSCMT, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Gloria Roberti, None; Francesco Oddone, Alcon (S), Allergan (R), Omikron (S), Santen (S); Manuele Michelessi, None; Lucia Tanga, None; Sara Giammaria, None; Davide Rastelli, None; Gianluca Manni, Alcon (S), Allergan (S), Omikron Italia srl (R), Santen (S)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2017, Vol.58, 2845. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Gloria Roberti, Francesco Oddone, Manuele Michelessi, Lucia Tanga, Sara Giammaria, Davide Rastelli, Gianluca Manni; Detecting central visual field defect in early glaucoma patients: Humphrey vs Octopus comparison study.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):2845.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Humphrey 10-2 SITA-Standard program (10-2,Humphrey Field Analyzer,Carl Zeiss Meditec,Inc.,Dublin,CA)detects central visual field defects (CVFD) better than Humphrey 24-2 SITA-Standard program (24-2) even in the early stage of the disease.The Octopus G1 Dynamic program (G1,Haag-Streit AG,Switzerland) has 17 test locations in the central area and 42 in the periphery. The aim of this single-arm cross sectional study was to compare 10-2 and G1 programs detecting CVFD in early glaucoma patients (EGP) and the agreement between G1 and 24-2 program detecting peripheral visual field defects.

Methods : EGP (mean deviation,MD<-7dB) without CVFD dected by 24-2 were included in the study. Glaucoma was defined by the presence of significant pattern standard deviation or MD values (p<5%) and a glaucoma hemifield test outside normal limits in 2 consecutive reliable 24-2 tests and by glaucomatous defect of the optic nerve head confirmed by reduced retinal nerve fibre layer thickness dected by optical coherence tomography (Spectralis, Heidelberg Engineering). Patients underwent full ophthalmological examination including visual acuity assessment, intraocular pressure measurement, and fundoscopy. Patients performed 10-2 and G1 visual field tests randomly. Student T test and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare parametric and non parametric continuous variables. A p value<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results : Thirty eyes of 27 early glaucoma patients (mean MD-3.9±2.7 dB) were included in the study.10-2 detected CVFD in 66.6% of eyes, while G1 detected CVFD in 80% of eyes. Eighteen eyes (60%) showed agreement between 10-2 and G1 results. G1 mean retinal sensitivity (MS) was statistically inferior compared to 24-2 MS (21.4±10.5 dB vs 25.0±3.0 db, p<0.0001). G1 number of significant depressed test locations (SDTL) in the superior and inferior hemifield was statistically higher compared to that of 24-2(superior SDTL 14.3±7.2 vs 6±4.6, p<0.0001; inferior SDTL 16.4±7.4 vs 8.4±4.3, p<0.0001).The duration of G1, 5±1.1 min, was similar to the duration of 24-2, 5.1±0.7 min (median 5 min, IQ 5-6, p=0.21).

Conclusions : Both 10-2 and G1 are able to detect CVFD not detected by 24-2 with good agreement between tests. G1 shows worst functional defect compared to 24-2 with similar duration of the tests. G1 seems to be able to detect both central and peripheric visual field defects.

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.

×