May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
SITAFast and TOP Strategies: Evaluation of Test-Retest Variability and Accuracy in Damaged Glaucomatous Visual Fields
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • M. Papadia
    Di.N.O.G., Univ of Genova, Genoa, Italy
  • P. Capris
    Di.N.O.G., Univ of Genova, Genoa, Italy
  • P. Camicione
    Di.N.O.G., Univ of Genova, Genoa, Italy
  • E. Capris
    Di.N.O.G., Univ of Genova, Genoa, Italy
  • F. Nasciuti
    Di.N.O.G., Univ of Genova, Genoa, Italy
  • C. E. Traverso
    Di.N.O.G., Univ of Genova, Genoa, Italy
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  M. Papadia, None; P. Capris, None; P. Camicione, None; E. Capris, None; F. Nasciuti, None; C.E. Traverso, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 1086. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      M. Papadia, P. Capris, P. Camicione, E. Capris, F. Nasciuti, C. E. Traverso; SITAFast and TOP Strategies: Evaluation of Test-Retest Variability and Accuracy in Damaged Glaucomatous Visual Fields. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):1086.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : : The reproducibility (inter-test variability) and the inter-algorithm differences of the Fast Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITAFast) algorithm of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) and the Tendency Oriented Perimetry (TOP) strategy of the Octopus perimeter were evaluated in damaged visual fields.

Methods: : Twenty eyes of twenty glaucomatous patients (mean age 58.6 years) with damaged visual fields ( Mean Defect (MD) >8 dB) were examined in two sessions.In the first session, each patient was tested first either with Full Threshold (FT) Octopus strategy or with FT Humphrey strategy and with SITAFast and TOP strategies, in random order.Second session was performed at least 3 days later, with the same procedure, in reverse order.

Results: : The average inter-test point-wise sensitivity difference for TOP (-0.66 dB) was lower than for SITAFast (-0.78 dB). The mean sensitivity error between SITAFast and HFA FT strategy (-1.58 dB) was significantly higher (p<0,01) than between TOP and the Octopus FT strategy (-0.87 dB).The testing time for TOP (154 sec) was 57.86 % lower than for SITAFast (363 sec).

Conclusions: : In this study TOP strategy revealed a better accuracy and a shorter test time when compared to SITAFast, with a more homogenous behavior in sensitivity differences when compared with the corresponding FT algorithm and in test-retest variability also for points with lower sensitivity.The fast strategies are an important improvement in perimetry, as they carry on reliable visual fields with a substantial time saving (84% using TOP strategy, 64% using SITA Fast) and a good repeatability.

Keywords: visual fields • perimetry • optic nerve 
×
×

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.

×