June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Comparing performance of the Flicker-Defined Form (FDF) stimulus and Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) using the Heidelberg Edge Perimeter (HEP) in patients newly referred with suspect glaucoma
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Csilla Ajtony
    1. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • Gnanapragasam Nithyanandarajah
    1. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • Rupert Bourne
    1. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
    Vision & Eye Research Unit, Postgraduate Medical Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Csilla Ajtony, None; Gnanapragasam Nithyanandarajah, None; Rupert Bourne, Allergan Ltd (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 3952. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Csilla Ajtony, Gnanapragasam Nithyanandarajah, Rupert Bourne; Comparing performance of the Flicker-Defined Form (FDF) stimulus and Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) using the Heidelberg Edge Perimeter (HEP) in patients newly referred with suspect glaucoma. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):3952.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To compare the performance of Heidelberg Edge Perimeter (HEP) Flicker-Defined Form (FDF) and Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) strategies to Humphrey SAP, in terms of reliability, duration of test and agreement between tests.

Methods: Consecutive new glaucoma suspects referred to a hospital’s glaucoma service received all 3 tests. A screening pre-test familiarised patients to the FDF stimulus followed by HEP-SAP and HEP-FDF tests. Agreement between tests was analysed using visual fields of patients with normal optic discs as judged by experienced optic disc graders using optic disc photographs.

Results: 137 patients (50 men, 57 women) with non-glaucomatous optic discs were included (average age, 61.1 years [SD, 9.9 years], range 22-89 years). 30 patients who performed unreliable HEP-FDF visual fields were excluded. Significantly lower values for test duration time compared to HFA-SAP (HEP-FDF: mean 276.3 seconds, SD 77.2 s; HEP-SAP: mean 214.9 s, SD 37.9 s; HFA-SAP: mean 307.1 s, SD 47.9 s). Among the reliability indexes, Fixation Losses were significantly fewer with the HEP-FDF (mean %, 1.19, SD 4.21; HEP-SAP: mean 5.21, SD 16.25; HFA-SAP: mean, 14.87, SD 23.69) . False Positive values (%) for HFA-SAP (mean 2.66; SD 4.62) were significantly higher than both HEP-FDF (mean 0.75; SD 1.17), or HEP-SAP (mean 0.79; SD 3.01). The mean False Negative ratios for HEP-FDF, HEP-SAP and HFA-SAP visual fields were 7.1 (SD 10.7), 3.9 (SD 8.0), 1.9 (SD 3.7), respectively. Significantly higher values for Mean Deviation (HEP-FDF: mean, -2.69, SD 2.59; HEP-SAP: mean, -0.52, SD 1.45; HFA-SAP: mean -0.64, SD 1.78; p<0.001) and Pattern Standard Deviation (HEP-FDF: mean 2.16, SD 1.13; HEP-SAP: mean, 1.53, SD, 0.91; p<0.001) were found in HEP-FDF tests.

Conclusions: The FDF test is intended for early detection of glaucomatous visual fields. Tests using this instrument were associated with higher false negative values than HEP-SAP and HFA-SAP. However, patients performed better on the HEP-FDF in terms of fewer fixation losses and lower false positive rates. Additionally test duration was faster with the HEP-FDF. Higher MD values were found with HEP-FDF visual fields than both HEP-SAP and HFA-SAP strategies, but PSD more closely agreed with HFA-SAP when testing these patients with normal optic nerves.

Keywords: 642 perimetry • 758 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.

×