May 2007
Volume 48, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2007
Microperimetry in Advanced Glaucoma
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • E. Convento
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • M. T. Dorigo
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • L. Berto
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • E. Midena
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
    Fondazione G.B.Bietti, Roma, Italy
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships E. Convento, None; M.T. Dorigo, None; L. Berto, None; E. Midena, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2007, Vol.48, 1611. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      E. Convento, M. T. Dorigo, L. Berto, E. Midena; Microperimetry in Advanced Glaucoma. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):1611.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose:: To evaluate the role of microperimetry in eyes with advanced glaucoma.

Methods:: Twenty eyes of twenty patients affected by advanced glaucoma underwent central and peripapillary fundus-related differential light threshold quantification with microperimetry (MP1 Microperimeter, Nidek Technologies, Padova, Italy). Fixation characteristics (location and stability) were documented. White-on-white standard visual field defects quantification with Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm Standard 24-2 perimetry (Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc., USA) was also perforrmed. Automatic microperimetry follow-up (testing exactly the same retinal points independently from fixation shifts) was performed 3 and 6 months after baseline examination.

Results:: At baseline, significant correlation (r=0.71) was found between central mean sensitivity loss quantified with microperimetry versus conventional white-on-white perimetry. Peripapillary microperimetry differential light threshold was circumferentially depressed (0.0 ± 5 dB), with absolute scotoma in upper and lower poles in all eyes. Moreover, central microperimetry exactly documented residual functional retinal areas (> 0dB), which were undetected by conventional perimetry, with significant correlation (r=0.85) with peripapillary residual sensitivity. Fixation was unstable in 18/20 eyes (90%). During follow-up. microperimetry showed progression of visual field damage, undetected by standard perimetry (p< 0.001)

Conclusions:: Microperimetry is able to exactly document residual visual field areas in advanced glaucoma. Fixation instability prevents accurate localization of the same areas with standard perimetry. Automatic microperimetry follow-up may accurately monitor the functional impact of any therapeutic approach in advanced glaucoma.

Keywords: perimetry • 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.