Purchase this article with an account.
D.M. Iihama, M.M. Aoki, L.A. S. Melo, Jr, I.M. Tavares, A. Paranhos, Jr; Comparison of Visual Field Defects Using Different Perimetries in Glaucomatous Patients . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):3726.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose:To compare the extension and depth of visual field defects detected by Short Wavelength Automated Perimetry (SWAP), Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry (FDT–Matrix), Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP), Flicker Perimetry, and Medmont Standard Automated Perimetry (Med–SAP) in open–angle glaucoma. Methods:Fourteen eyes of 14 patients were included in this study. Patients were included if they had clinically controlled open–angle glaucoma and previously detected glaucomatous defect in the Standard Automated Perimetry. The patients underwent SWAP (Humphrey 24–2 Full Threshold), FDT–Matrix, SAP (Humphrey 24–2 Sita–Standard), Flicker (Medmont) and Med–SAP perimetries in a random sequence. Each visual field test was performed twice, and each patient performed all exams within 4 weeks. The second exam of each visual field test was considered for analysis. The extension and depth of visual field defect were analyzed from the Total Deviation Graph by considering the percentage of points showing defects with probabilities lower than 5% and 0.5%. Results:All fourteen patients completed the study. The mean percentage of points with probabilities lower than 5% was different among the visual field tests (P=0.003). The FDT–Matrix showed the highest mean percentage of 5% altered points (48.7%), which was statistically significant different from Med–SAP (22.2%; P=0.006), SAP (21.0%; P=0.001), and SWAP (17.5%; P=0.006), but not different from Flicker perimetry (35.8%; P=0.22). The mean percentage of points with probabilities lower than 0.5% was also different among the visual field tests (P=0.003). The FDT–Matrix showed the highest mean percentage of 0.5% altered points (29.8%), which was statistically significant different from SAP (8.1%; P=0.004), Med–SAP (7.4%; P=0.006), and SWAP (3.0%; P=0.006), but not different from Flicker perimetry (18.2%; P=0.30). Conclusions:The visual field defects detected by different perimetries are not equivalent regarding to extension and depth of visual field defects in glaucomatous patients. The FDT–Matrix showed the largest visual field defects, whereas the SWAP showed the smallest ones.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only