May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
Kinetic Microperimetry – Comparison Between the MP1 and SLO Fundus Perimetry
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • K. Rohrschneider
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • C. Springer
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  K. Rohrschneider, None; C. Springer, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  DFG Ro 973/11–2
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 1559. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      K. Rohrschneider, C. Springer; Kinetic Microperimetry – Comparison Between the MP1 and SLO Fundus Perimetry . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):1559.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Abstract: : Purpose: Although microperimetry has been implemented into clinical use for exact correlation between fundus pathology and corresponding functional defects for years, it remained mainly on static function testing. By software modification of the recently developed Micro Perimeter 1 (Nidek Inc.) a kinetic examination has become possible. Aim of this study was to evaluate the first options of this kinetic perimetry in relation to the retinal pathology and in comparison to our kinetic perimetry with the SLO. Methods: Kinetic perimetry was performed in 20 eyes of 20 patients (23–83 years of age) with different forms of retinal pathology (geographic atrophy caused by AMD, juvenile macular dystrophy, retinal scars). Goldmann III and II stimuli at different luminance levels were used. Kinetic perimetry was performed with the stimulus moving either centrifugal (out of the scotomatous area) or centripetal from seen to not seen areas with an automated algorithm in 8 directions. Correction for eye movements were performed after recognition of the stimulus by the patient. Results:The results were comparable with both instruments and correlated well with retinal pathology. The automated perimetric strategy used within the MP1 allows for reliable measurements with significant reduced examination times (1 to 6 min) as compared with the SLO. However, the actually missing option to retest selective directions led to artificial wrong results in some cases. Only minor differences could be observed in perimetric results between centripetal and centrifugal stimulus movements although most patients found the latter much more easy. Conclusions: Kinetic fundus perimetry permits a reliable and fast detection of scotomas especially when they are concordant with retinal pathology. In comparison to static perimetry the delineation of scotomas is possible with more precision. This will allow to better follow patients with function deterioration caused by retinal disease and to correlate the size of (para)central visual field defects with three–dimensional changes as observed using coherence tomography or laser scanning tomography. Further improvement of the actual software may even improve reliability and examination comfort. 2278

Keywords: perimetry • visual fields • imaging methods (CT, FA, ICG, MRI, OCT, RTA, SLO, ultrasound) 

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.