Purchase this article with an account.
C. Kum, S. Day, T. Hwang, T. McCulley; Comparative Evaluation of Frequency Doubling Perimetry and Conventional Automated Perimetry in Neuro-Ophthalmic Disease. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):1192.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
This study compares the newer, Humphrey Matrix frequency doubling technology (FDT) with standard Humphrey visual field perimetry (HVF) in patients with visual field defects due to neuro-ophthalmic disease.
A retrospective chart review was used to identify and assess n=17 eyes (x=12 patients) seen by the neuro-ophthalmology service at UCSF, from June 2006 to December 2007 with visual field defects that underwent both Matrix 30-2 FDT and standard 30-2 HVF perimetry. Diagnoses were as follows: occipital lobe defects (x=3 patients), compression of the chiasm (x=2), ischemic optic neuropathy (x=2), incidentally found optic atrophy (x=1), dominant optic atrophy (x=1), compressive optic neuropathy (x=1), optic nerve glioma (x=1) and papilledema (x=1). The number of corresponding quadrants on "pattern deviation" was determined using the following method: First, the number of abnormal test spots (p<2%) per quadrant (17 test points total) on each FDT was determined. Then the 17 matching points on HVF perimetry were similarly assessed. Finally, for each quadrant, the fields were considered to correspond if the difference in the number of abnormal test spots for a given quadrant was less than 6.
The fields corresponded in all four quadrants in 35% (n=6 eyes), in three quadrants in 35% (n=6), in two quadrants in 6% (n=1), in one quadrant in 12% (n=2) and in no quadrants in 12% (n=2).
In eyes with visual field defects due to neuro-ophthalmic disease (both "anterior" and "posterior") we observed findings in FDT comparable to HVF testing in only 35% of the fields. In another 35%, fields corresponded in all but one quadrant. In the remainder, minimal correspondence between FDT and HVF testing was observed. FDT might compliment, but should not replace standard perimetry in the assessment of patients with neuro-ophthalmic disease.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only