May 2003
Volume 44, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2003
Microperimetry – Comparison between the MP1 and SLO Fundus Perimetry
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • K. Rohrschneider
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • S. Bültmann
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  K. Rohrschneider, None; S. Bültmann, None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2003, Vol.44, 4886. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      K. Rohrschneider, S. Bültmann; Microperimetry – Comparison between the MP1 and SLO Fundus Perimetry . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003;44(13):4886.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Abstract: : Purpose: Fundus perimetry or microperimetry has been implemented into clinical use for exact correlation between fundus pathology and corresponding functional defects. The scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO, Rodenstock, Germany) is no longer available on the market. Recently, a new instrument named MP1 has been introduced by Nidek Inc.. We wanted to compare both instruments. Methods: We performed fundus perimetric examination with our static threshold fundus perimetry using the SLO as well as with the MP1 following pupil dilation. The number of stimuli was comparable and a 4-2-1 staircase strategy was applied. The MP1 has an automated real-time image alignment, while the software used with the SLO needed a landmark defined by the operator. Results: The results were comparable with both instruments. However, the perimetric strategy used with the MP1 measures threshold for each location beginning with the same luminance and testing one point after the other, i.e. presenting stimuli 5 to 8 times at the same location. Therefore examination time is about 70% higher as with the SLO. For 35 to 45 stimulus locations examination time was 6 to 9 minutes with the MP1, while it was 3 to 6 minutes with the SLO. In addition there is no possibility to define stimulus locations on the fundus and examination of pseudophak eyes is difficult. Conclusion: The MP1 is a major step in automated fundus perimetry. However, the current software needs improvement before exact measurements of defined retinal diseases are possible. In comparison to the original software provided with the SLO, it is a major step forward. Further software improvement may reduce examination time and even imply new perimetric strategies (i.e. SITA). The presence of an examiner will still be needed for maintaining appropriate fundus imaging.

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

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.