May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Portable Vision Field Screening Device
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • R.S. Ayyala
    Ophthalmology, Tulane Univ Med Sch, New Orleans, LA
  • I.C. Shin
    Ophthalmology, Tulane Univ Med Sch, New Orleans, LA
  • A. Arosemena
    Ophthalmology, Tulane Univ Med Sch, New Orleans, LA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  R.S. Ayyala, None; I.C. Shin, None; A. Arosemena, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Tulane Glaucoma Research Fund
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 3300. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      R.S. Ayyala, I.C. Shin, A. Arosemena; Portable Vision Field Screening Device . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):3300.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To test the efficacy of a novel portable vision field screening device (PVFD) that was built at the Tulane Glaucoma Service. Methods: The PVFD consists of a head mounted display that is connected to visual field algorithm software on a Palm pilot and a remote control. The test algorithm used for the study purposes was based on the Damato Campimeter. Advantages of the new device include a truly portable device with the ability to change the algorithm and use it in any setting, ease of usage and cost effectiveness ( < $ 1000.00) . Forty patients from the Tulane Glaucoma Service were recruited for the study. The visual field results from the PVFD was compared to the Humphrey 30–2 SITA standard test(HVF). Patients were also asked to compare the HVF test to the PVFD in terms of ease of usage and comfort level. Results: Compared to the HVF results, the PVFD using the Damato campimeter algorithm attained 82% sensitivity and 80% specificity. 100% of the patients found the PVDF easier to use and expressed satisfaction. The average time taken for the PVFD was 1 minute per eye compared to 7 minutes with the HVF. Conclusions: The initial results from the PVFD compares well with that of the HVF. We plan to test different algorithms and in different settings such as in the health camp settings. Supported by Tulane Glaucoma Research Fund

Keywords: visual fields 
×
×

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.

×