May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Cross Sensitivity Analysis Among a Population of Amd Patients Monitored With the Preview Php (Preferential Hyperacuity Perimeter)
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Y. Alster
    Ophthalmology, Notal, Tel–Aviv, Israel
  • N.J. Mehta, Jr.
    Ophthalmology, The Colorado Retina Center, Denver, CO
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Y. Alster, Notal Vision, F; N.J. Mehta, Notal Vision, C.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 2120. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Y. Alster, N.J. Mehta, Jr.; Cross Sensitivity Analysis Among a Population of Amd Patients Monitored With the Preview Php (Preferential Hyperacuity Perimeter) . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):2120.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: : Monitoring dry AMD patients for the detection of early development of CNV is critical for successful treatment outcomes. The PreView PHP (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin CA) is a new perimeter used for monitoring the development of visual field defects associated with CNV. As guidelines for using this device are immerging, it is important to clarify whether forms of AMD other then CNV may cause a significant visual field defect. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively assess AMD patients who demonstrated a significant visual field defect on the PHP and to define their clinical characteristics.

Methods: : Fifty–two patients at various stages of AMD were evaluated from November 2004 through October of 2005 with the PHP. Tests demonstrating hyperacuity disturbance patterns with either medium or high confidence for AMD progression, with low false positive and false negative error rates (1 on the 1–3 scale) were evaluated with subsequent fluorescein angiography, often supplemented with optical coherent tomography (OCT), and occasionally with indocyanine–green angiography (ICG) to further refine the diagnosis.

Results: : A total of 19 eyes from 18 patients fulfilled the above characteristics. Of these, 11 eyes (58%) demonstrated geographic atrophy, 3 (16%) had non–neovascular RPE detachments and 3 (16%) showed occult CNV. One eye (6%) showed an RPE detachment possibly harboring occult CNV. One (6%) had a lamellar macular hole with an associated epimacular membrane.

Conclusions: : These results demonstrate that other stages of AMD may cause visual field defects that resemble defects caused by CNV. Such cross sensitivity should be recognized when monitoring AMD patients with the PHP.

Keywords: age-related macular degeneration • visual fields • choroid: neovascularization 

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.