April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Comparison among humphrey field analyzer and nidek MP-1 in retinitis pigmentosa patients
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Erika Rigoni
    Ophthalmology, University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy
  • Carmela Carnevale
    Ophthalmology, University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy
  • Daniela Domanico
    Ophthalmology, University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy
  • Enzo M Vingolo
    Ophthalmology, University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Erika Rigoni, None; Carmela Carnevale, None; Daniela Domanico, None; Enzo Vingolo, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 1407. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Erika Rigoni, Carmela Carnevale, Daniela Domanico, Enzo M Vingolo; Comparison among humphrey field analyzer and nidek MP-1 in retinitis pigmentosa patients. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):1407.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate retinal sensitivity in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) using the MP-1 microperimeter (Nidek Technologies, Italy) and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA).

Methods: Ten patients (10 eyes) with retinitis pigmentosa (mean age 48,2 8,9 years) were assessed. Subjects performed one examination using the HFA (10-2 pattern) and one using the MP-1 microperimeter. All tested eyes had defects encroaching within 10° of fixation. Fixation score, central 2 and 4 degrees values and bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA) were obtained from the MP-1. Statistical analysis was performed with Student’s t-test. Values < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results: BCVA was 0.64 ± 0.46 logMAR; in all patients refractive errors not exceeding -1.50D sphere and −1.50D cylinder. BCEA which contained 99% fixation points was 5.58 ± 5.46 degree sq. Fixation within the 2° and 4° diameter circle were 68.9± 24,25 % and 90,7 ± 8,59 % respectively. Sensitivity values for the MP-1 (mean 4.94 ± 6.55 dB) were not significantly different from HFA values (mean 5.81 ± 6.31 dB) (p =0,056).

Conclusions: Although there was not significant difference in retinal sensitivity between MP-1 and HFA, these two devices presented a different background luminance level and also a significant advantage of the MP-1 micro perimeter over the HFA is the capability for fixation stability quantification.

Keywords: 702 retinitis • 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.

×