Purchase this article with an account.
S. K. Gupta, S. Grover, W. W. Phillips, J. A. Sifrit, K. V. Chalam; Microperimetry vs. Humphery Visual Field in the Evaluation of Toxic Maculopathy. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):4138.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare Microperimetry (MP-1) and Humphrey Perimetry in the evaluation of toxic macular retinopathies.
Microperimetry and static perimetry were performed using HVF (10-2 Red Free) in 8 eyes of 4 patients being followed for possible toxic maculopathy. Each instrument had a 4-2-1 strategic application with a Goldman III stimulus and an identical schematic diagram. Fixation parameters accepted for the study were less than 20% fixation loss for the HVF, and greater than 90% fixation on the MP1.
Both instruments demonstrated similar defects, wherever applicable. However the MP1 displayed greater sensitivity in decibel loss and a more precise geographic representation of its schematic visual defects in 6 eyes tested as compared to the HVF. Fixation loss showed an increase in stability for 7 eyes for the MP1 analysis compared to the HVF.
Both instruments showed detection of visual loss and fixation, but in our study the MP1 provided a greater stimulus sensitivity and scotoma localization when compared to the HVF in patients affected with toxic maculopathy. The MP1 provided adjustments for eye movements that allowed real-time alignment even if the patient was unable to fixate accurately. The HVF does not provide visual tracking and therefore can alter the analysis outcome. Also, the MP1 allows a color fundus photo to overlay the visual field, helping to correlate the pathology with the scotoma.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only