Abstract
Purpose: :
To compare the standard thresholding testing – normal (NL) – and tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) strategies in normal individuals with previous experience in automated perimetry undergoing blue–yellow perimetry.
Methods: :
Fifty normal individuals who had prior experience with automated acromatic perimetry were included. All subjects underwent automated blue–yellow perimetry (Interzeag Octopus 311, program G1) with both the NL and TOP strategies on the same day, with an interval of at least thirty minutes. The order of the exams was randomized, and only one eye per individual was analyzed. The following variables were compared: test time, foveal threshold, false–positive and false–negative errors, means sensitivity (MS), mean defect (MD), loss variance (LV), number of questions and repetitions, and number of depressed points deviating at P<5%, P<2%, P<1%, and P<0.5% on the probability and corrected probability maps.
Results: :
Among the 50 patients, 29 were male (58%) and 21 were female (42%). The mean age was 39.6 ± 10.3 years (20 – 58 years). When the results of all NL and TOP tests were analyzed, there were no significant differences between the foveal threshold (P=0.818), the MS (P=0.318), the MD (P=0.224) and the number of false–negative errors (P=0.080). The LV (P=0.002) and the number of false–positive errors (P=0.006) were significantly higher with the NL strategy. The duration of the test was significantly lower for TOP (2.37 ± 0.21 min) compared to the normal strategy (12.35 ± 1.23 min) (P<0.00001). There were no significant differences regarding the number of significantly depressed points on the probability (P>0.320) and corrected probability (P>0.289) maps when comparing NL and TOP strategies.
Conclusions: :
Normal individuals with perimetric experience may present similar findings in visual field examination when undergoing blue–yellow automated perimetry using NL and TOP strategies. The TOP strategy reduces examination time significantly.
Keywords: perimetry • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques • visual fields